2015-02-03 UTC
Loqi joined the channel
# 17:14 AnnB Adam Boyet and I have been trying to define the profile use cases in simplified list, per your request last week # 17:14 AnnB see if that's what you want # 17:14 tantek AnnB - sorry don't have time before call - on another call now # 17:14 AnnB I'm asking anyone # 17:15 AnnB but pointing out to you as you had specific descriptions of what you want # 17:15 AnnB no worries on time jaakko, caseorganic, the_frey, almereyda, almereyda_, almereyda__ and elf-pavlik joined the channel
RRSAgent joined the channel
Zakim joined the channel
# 18:01 Zakim ok, trackbot; I see T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM scheduled to start now # 18:02 Zakim T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM has not yet started, tantek # 18:02 Zakim On IRC I see RRSAgent, elf-pavlik, almereyda, jaakko, Loqi, tantek, eprodrom, hhalpin, AnnB, harry, jasnell, bblfish, danbri, wilkie, bigbluehat, jaywink, shepazu, Arnaud, # 18:02 Zakim ... JakeHart, dwhly, mattl, rhiaro_, oshepherd_, rektide, nickstenn, KevinMarks, ShaneHudson, pdurbin, ben_thatmust, bret, Tsyesika, ben_thatmustbeme, kylewm, aaronpk, trackbot, almereyda_ joined the channel
# 18:02 Zakim ok, Arnaud; that matches T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM # 18:02 Zakim On the phone I see Ann, Arnaud, [Mozilla] AdamB joined the channel
# 18:04 AdamB zakim, aabb is me # 18:04 Zakim On the phone I see Ann, Arnaud, [Mozilla], aaronpk, +1.541.410.aaaa, jasnell, AdamB, bret (muted), elf-pavlik (muted), rhiaro_, eprodrom # 18:04 Zakim On IRC I see AdamB, almereyda_, Zakim, RRSAgent, elf-pavlik, jaakko, Loqi, tantek, eprodrom, hhalpin, AnnB, harry, jasnell, bblfish, danbri, wilkie, bigbluehat, jaywink, shepazu, # 18:04 Zakim ... Arnaud, JakeHart, dwhly, mattl, rhiaro_, oshepherd_, rektide, nickstenn, KevinMarks, ShaneHudson, pdurbin, ben_thatmust, bret, Tsyesika, ben_thatmustbeme, kylewm, aaronpk, # 18:04 Zakim sees on the phone: Ann, Arnaud, [Mozilla], aaronpk, +1.541.410.aaaa, jasnell, AdamB, bret (muted), elf-pavlik (muted), rhiaro_ (muted), eprodrom melvster joined the channel
# 18:05 Zakim sees on the phone: Ann, Arnaud, [Mozilla], aaronpk, Lloyd_Fassett, jasnell, AdamB, bret (muted), elf-pavlik (muted), rhiaro_ (muted), eprodrom, bblfish, dromasca bill-looby joined the channel
# 18:06 hhalpin Zakim, what's the code? # 18:06 Zakim the conference code is 7625 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), hhalpin dromasca joined the channel
# 18:06 aaronpk tantek: first order of business is to approve last weeks minutes # 18:07 bill-looby zakim ipcaller is me # 18:07 eprodrom tantek I believe I have an open action to add the IBM Connections discussion to the agenda # 18:07 Zakim sees on the phone: Ann, Arnaud, [Mozilla], aaronpk, Lloyd_Fassett, jasnell, AdamB, bret (muted), elf-pavlik (muted), rhiaro_ (muted), eprodrom, bblfish, dromasca, bill-looby # 18:07 aaronpk okay then up to evan toa dd the items to the agenda before the end # 18:07 AdamB looked very lively :) # 18:08 aaronpk ...based on no objections and one +1, declare the minutes approved # 18:08 aaronpk tantek: first issue, should we drop verbs and only use object types # 18:09 aaronpk ...any suggestions for how we resolve this since it's not assigned to anyone # 18:09 Zakim sees elf-pavlik, jasnell on the speaker queue # 18:10 jasnell this has already been done in the current working draft # 18:10 aaronpk Arnaud: we can give someone an action to come up with a proposal to address an issue # 18:10 Zakim elf-pavlik, you wanted to discuss ACTION-26 Review microformats due jan 14, 2015 # 18:10 bret (sound is breaking up... sounds like a mic level issue) # 18:11 Zakim sees jasnell, eprodrom on the speaker queue # 18:11 Zakim sees jasnell, eprodrom on the speaker queue # 18:11 aaronpk tantek: if this is about the open issue type in IRC, otherwise will ack james # 18:11 aaronpk jasnell: re: verbs, the current draft already dropped verb # 18:11 Loqi Tsyesika: elf-pavlik left you a message 3 weeks, 6 days ago: sorry for ping just checking Loqi ... # 18:11 aaronpk ...the verb property from the original AS has already been deprecated # 18:11 eprodrom I just closed it # 18:13 aaronpk jasnell: the current approach is to depend on explicit types. the implicit approach was talked about at the F2F but not followed up on # 18:13 aaronpk ...i'm sure an implementation could choose to do implicit if it wanted, but right now the approach is explicit # 18:13 aaronpk tantek: is there anyone here who would like to propose implicit typing? # 18:13 bblfish I suppose implicit typing would require rdf:domain and rdf:range # 18:13 eprodrom Not me and I believe the current typing is good # 18:14 aaronpk ???: I don't have an opinion on this, but if you wanted to, you'd specify the domain and range # 18:14 aaronpk ...and then an rdf inferencing engine would be able to infer it # 18:14 aaronpk ...but we don't want to make people rely on this in the beginning, better to make it explicit # 18:14 hhalpin yep, its highly unlikely anyone will use RDF(S) inferencing. # 18:14 elf-pavlik tantek, i think you came up with it so maybe you could take action to research it further? # 18:14 Zakim sees on the phone: Ann, Arnaud, [Mozilla], aaronpk, Lloyd_Fassett, jasnell, AdamB, bret (muted), elf-pavlik (muted), rhiaro_ (muted), eprodrom, bblfish, dromasca, bill-looby, # 18:14 aaronpk tantek: are you proposing a way to do it, or are you saying here are some thoughts # 18:14 Zakim ... Sandro, hhalpin (muted), Tsyesika (muted) # 18:15 aaronpk bblfish: i'm fine with explicit typing, if youwant implicit you have to do domain and range # 18:15 bblfish If I am wrong then it's because I have not understood the problem # 18:15 aaronpk tantek: I was one of the ones who brought this up at the F2F so I'l ltake the action to come up with a simple proposal for implicit typying # 18:15 eprodrom Create an action # 18:16 aaronpk put a URL in the action descirption, hope that's good enough # 18:17 aaronpk tantek: we were using a lot of jargon at the f2f and we didn't all agree necessarily # 18:17 aaronpk AnnB: we do have lloyd, chair of the vocab task force in the IG # 18:17 aaronpk tantek: no this isn't for vocabulary, just in prose # 18:17 aaronpk AnnB: a glossary is similar to teh vocabulary no? # 18:18 aaronpk eprodrom: the problem was that we have a use case that speaks abotu federating profiles, uses "federate" as a verb without clearly saying what that means # 18:18 aaronpk ...the idae was that we would grab some of the jargon terms and nail them down # 18:18 aaronpk ...i'm happy with closing the issue, don't believe it's necessary. i'm happy to live with the ambiguity # 18:19 AdamB +1 on waiting until another problem # 18:19 aaronpk tantek: anyone else happy to live with the ambiguity until we run into a problem? # 18:19 aaronpk AnnB: if we encounter a specific issue we can address then # 18:19 AnnB hung up by mistake .. dialing back the_frey joined the channel
# 18:20 aaronpk lloyd: my perspective is federation through vocabulary is a circular argument # 18:20 aaronpk ...to me it was a discussion about having a central resource to do the federation or is the standard going to allow direct multi-point to multi point federation # 18:20 aaronpk tantek: that's not what the issue was about, just that we couldn't agree on what federation meant # 18:20 Zakim sees eprodrom, bblfish on the speaker queue # 18:20 hhalpin noting we are 20 minutes in # 18:20 eprodrom hhalpin: thanks # 18:20 hhalpin we should probably move to substantial discussion of API # 18:21 aaronpk lloyd: agree with living with the ambiguity for now # 18:21 hhalpin IMHO this "federation" conversation will go on forever # 18:21 aaronpk bblfish: suggestion to drop "federation" and use "p2p" # 18:21 eprodrom tantek can we just say "any updates to actions and issues" and move on? # 18:21 hhalpin so let's take that to the IG mailing list # 18:21 Zakim sees eprodrom, bblfish on the speaker queue # 18:22 tantek ISSUE-6: Make sure we have teleconferencing equipment for next f2f # 18:22 trackbot Notes added to ISSUE-6 Make sure we have teleconferencing equipment for next f2f. # 18:22 trackbot Notes added to ISSUE-8 Test suite for activity streams 2.0. # 18:23 trackbot ISSUE-8 -- Test suite for activity streams 2.0 -- open # 18:23 bill-looby Are we discussing Issue 7 ? or does pending review mean addressing outside this call ? # 18:23 aaronpk tantek: we don't currently have any concrete plans for a test suite # 18:23 aaronpk ...anyone want to volunteer to work on at least a plan for a test suite # 18:23 Zakim sees bblfish, hhalpin on the speaker queue # 18:23 Zakim sees bblfish, hhalpin on the speaker queue # 18:24 aaronpk bblfish: recently looked at a case of an ontology written out, and these are difficult to test currently # 18:24 aaronpk ...so what we might want to do is ask the people from OWL or RDF working groups to find what tools they use to test ontologies # 18:24 aaronpk tantek: hold on we don't need a specific plan right now, are you willing to agree to take the action # 18:25 AnnB sounds like someone just needs to get a brain dump from you, Henry # 18:25 hhalpin Zakim, unmute hhalpin # 18:25 aaronpk bblfish: i'm just saying why don't we ask other people what tools we use # 18:25 bblfish I am saying why don't we ask people in the OWL / RDF land # 18:25 aaronpk hhalpin: having been in those WGs there's nothing useful # 18:26 aaronpk hhalpin: we can use the standard W3C javascript test tools # 18:26 aaronpk ...skip those for now since that's what we're working on # 18:26 aaronpk ...any actions that anyone wants to report progress on? # 18:27 Zakim sees hhalpin, jasnell on the speaker queue # 18:27 Zakim sees hhalpin, jasnell, bill-looby on the speaker queue # 18:27 aaronpk ...if nothing to report, we'll move on to the rest of the agenda # 18:27 Zakim sees hhalpin, jasnell, bill-looby on the speaker queue # 18:27 Zakim sees jasnell, bill-looby on the speaker queue # 18:27 Zakim sees jasnell, bill-looby on the speaker queue # 18:28 aaronpk jasnell: the AS drafts were published on thursday # 18:28 Loqi I added a countdown for 2/5 12:00am (#5603) # 18:28 aaronpk bill-looby: been looking at proposed API, but still don't have access to the wiki # 18:28 aaronpk tantek: okay next agenda item, move forward with work on the social api. evan's action so he can lead the discussion # 18:29 aaronpk eprodrom: thanks tantek. so last week we had an action item to approve a list of requirements # 18:29 AnnB bill-looby -- is someone helping you get access to wiki? # 18:29 aaronpk ...which is great in a lot of ways, but is also difficult cause we can go all over the place # 18:29 aaronpk ...had a lot of discussion on the mailing list and on the telcon last week # 18:29 aaronpk ...one of the big items of feedback is the format of the requirements we have is probably not sufficient to develop a candicate proposal for # 18:30 aaronpk ...in discussion with teh other chairs, in order to move forward, we proposed a mechanism and schedule for pushing the process forward # 18:30 aaronpk ...first step is take the list of requirements we have now, # 18:30 aaronpk ...things like creating social connections, posting new content, repsonding to content # 18:30 aaronpk ...using each fo the high level groupings to create a user story # 18:30 aaronpk ...we have about 10 high level groupings, so we create a set of 10 user stories # 18:31 aaronpk ...would have those ready to go for next week, Feb 10 # 18:31 aaronpk ...and then if we generate more user stories in that time that's great, btu can definitely commit to taking the requirements we have and turning them into user stories # 18:31 aaronpk ...will be doing this on the wiki so people can review # 18:31 aaronpk ...we'l talk about it next week Feb 10, and over the week of 10-17 working group participants will use +1 -1 +0 voting on the wiki page # 18:32 aaronpk ...on 17 feb we come out with a set of 0-10 user stories that we use to measure our candidate proposals # 18:32 aaronpk ...there's nothing in this keeping us from developing candidate proposals # 18:32 aaronpk ...from the point of view of the chairs and w3c team, if we have a good set of user stories we agree on, it will be much easier t oaccept the validitiy of proposals that come in # 18:32 KevinMarks if we have 0 user stories does that mean we have no specs to do? # 18:33 aaronpk tantek: would like to point out there is one user story to be used as at template for developing user stories # 18:33 aaronpk eprodrom: we have one user story previously approved, SWAT0, a good example of a concrete user story that is a good model for other user storie that come in # 18:34 Zakim sees on the phone: Arnaud, [Mozilla], aaronpk, Lloyd_Fassett, jasnell, AdamB, bret (muted), elf-pavlik (muted), rhiaro_ (muted), eprodrom, bblfish, dromasca, bill-looby, Sandro, # 18:34 eprodrom bblfish: thanks # 18:34 Zakim ... hhalpin, Tsyesika (muted), Ann, +1.408.335.aaee # 18:34 aaronpk AnnB: i feel like the IG failed the WG in that we were supposed to define a bunch of use cases but it didn't happen # 18:34 aaronpk ...adam and I have spent some time int he last couple days, we have a ton of use cases described in a narrative format # 18:34 aaronpk ...but we didn't get them into a common use case template # 18:34 aaronpk ...after this meeting last week when there was discussion about havsing distinct step 1-2-3 use cases, tried to do that with one of them and adam tried to do a few more # 18:35 aaronpk ...my question is your call now for user stories, is that comparable to use cases? # 18:35 aaronpk eprodrom: i think the idea behind user stories is 3-5 sentence paragraph that talks about a process someone goes through satisfying a need # 18:36 aaronpk ...there may be multiple functional points in that process, but we're talking abotu end users satisfying requirements using a particular tool # 18:36 aaronpk ...also does anyone have an understanding of user stories that is far different fomr that? # 18:36 aaronpk tantek: there is a key implicit question of "why" # 18:36 aaronpk ...it's good to document in steps, ann's example of social profile creation is a good step in that direction # 18:36 aaronpk ...when evan and i developed swat0 years ago, there was a clear motivation of why behind the user story # 18:37 aaronpk ...this is osmething people do today, they take pictures and post them and tag each other # 18:37 aaronpk ...the why is an important aspect of any use case # 18:37 aaronpk ...the example ann posted of social profile creation, people are creating profiles all the time, its' useful to ask why are they doing that # 18:37 aaronpk ...there are no service where you just createa profile for its own sake, you're doing it for a reason # 18:38 aaronpk AnnB: i was thinking the narrative in these describes the why # 18:38 aaronpk ...in the case of profile, pretty much all other actions depend on the profile being createdin the first place # 18:38 aaronpk ... were trying to boil it down into twitter-like succinct steps # 18:38 aaronpk ...we have some exmaples out there, would be useful to get some feedback now # 18:38 aaronpk ...would be interested to know how these are different from user stories # 18:38 aaronpk tantek: since you bvrought up the point about having tweetable user stories danbri joined the channel
# 18:39 aaronpk tantek: would like to put this forth as a proposal # 18:39 aaronpk PROPOSAL: any user stories that are posted have a tweetable basic summary of the steps # 18:39 aaronpk AnnB: might be too brief. in some cases we might get stuck tyring to make it too short # 18:40 sandro KevinMarks, you mean like a screenshot of twitter rejecting your really long tweet? :-) # 18:40 aaronpk tantek: the point is if it feels like it's not fittin,g it probably needs to be broken into multiple stories # 18:40 aaronpk AnnB: the IG has focused ont he profile use cases because pretty much everything derives from a profile # 18:41 aaronpk sandro: mostly want to ask evan about this, thought i heard him volunteering to rethink the requiremetns into a corresponding set of use cases # 18:41 aaronpk ...while I love the precision of the profile use case and swat0, but even sketching out briefly to find out if that's what people want out of the WG # 18:41 AnnB seems to me there needs to be more than SWAT0 # 18:41 aaronpk ...once we have that we can delve more into fleshing them out # 18:41 AnnB and how do they get approved? Lloyd_Fassett joined the channel
# 18:42 aaronpk AnnB: i'm now chairing the IG, trying to focus that energy into whatever is useful in the WG # 18:42 aaronpk ...that's our mission is to be supportive of teh WG # 18:42 aaronpk eprodrom: we could probably talk about the purpose of the IG # 18:43 aaronpk ...i would love to take the requirement list and convert them into user stories, waill try to keep them short # 18:43 aaronpk ...may be an interesting exercise to make them tweetable # 18:43 aaronpk ...the help of the IG over the next week would be to review those # 18:43 Loqi @kevinmarks :: "@t: SWAT0
👱posts+tags mobile photo of 👲
👲photo notified
👳(follows 👱) sees it; replies
👱&👲comment notified
Prev: http://t.co/U3j2gqf36Q" # 18:43 aaronpk ...this is really about getting the social API out # 18:43 Lloyd_Fassett thanks tantek! # 18:43 aaronpk ...there's a federation case in the profile use case, but I don't think federation is applicable to social API so not somtehing we'll deal with this time around # 18:43 tantek bblfish: the "tweet" constraint is a deliberate forcing function for simplification, and reducing "essays" which tend to otherwise occur # 18:44 aaronpk ...effort is to get the drafts up ASAP and have the IG review them # 18:44 AnnB good feedback, eprodrom; thanks # 18:44 tantek make that bblfish, the "tweet" constraint is a deliberate forcing function for simplification, and reducing "essays" which tend to otherwise occur # 18:44 aaronpk ...I might even be able to have them ready for tomororw's IG call # 18:44 aaronpk ACTION eprodrom: convert social API requirements to 2-10 user stories of 3-5 sentences each # 18:44 trackbot Created ACTION-38 - Convert social api requirements to 2-10 user stories of 3-5 sentences each [on Evan Prodromou - due 2015-02-10]. jaakko_ joined the channel
# 18:45 aaronpk tantek: beyond that the general proposal for user stories to drive requirements by tuesday, then to evaluate the user stories and vote by the 17th # 18:45 bblfish q+ will there be enough time for people to add their own stories, in case they find some missing? # 18:45 Zakim bblfish, you typed too many words without commas; I suspect you forgot to start with 'to ...' # 18:45 bblfish will there be enough time for people to add their own stories, in case they find some missing? # 18:46 aaronpk ...that voting should include: +1 you would use that yourself, but also +1 you would implement that in a client or +1 you would implement that on a server # 18:46 sandro +1 voting should be about whether you'll implement on server, implement on client, buy products using it, ... etc, or somehow see it as harmful or problematic. # 18:46 aaronpk ...you have a week to propose a user story, then you have a week to vote on whether you would *use* and *implement* those stories # 18:46 AnnB note that some of us (e.g., me) don't implement things # 18:47 sandro AnnB, you can speak to the products that Boeing wants # 18:47 aaronpk tantek: anyone is welcome to take any of the work done in the IG and put it forth for the WG to consider # 18:47 Zakim sees harry, eprodrom on the speaker queue # 18:48 aaronpk ...this is a general call for anyone in this WG to take any user story (they don't need to write it themselves) and prppose it # 18:48 Zakim sorry, harry, I do not know which phone connection belongs to harry # 18:48 aaronpk hhalpin: quick note, effectively we're doing this process because we had such disagreement over the requirements # 18:48 aaronpk ...what we didn't want is open-ended user stories # 18:49 aaronpk ...what we wanted is user stories that we use to psuh out the API draft and know the benchmarks of it # 18:49 Zakim sees eprodrom, sandro on the speaker queue # 18:49 AnnB right, sandro .. my point is I don't want something ranked lower because I don't vote that I will implement it # 18:49 jaakko my team would like to be building a prototype in the upcoming weeks but we're still uncertain about the technology choices. we have the user story and source data to be consumed and published in a activity stream. what would be the best way to go about building a proto? # 18:49 aaronpk ...we did rat-hole really badly last week, we had users bringing up implementation level details abotu how they wanted the plumbing to work # 18:49 aaronpk ...they have to be implementation independent at this point # 18:50 aaronpk ...let's try to stay on focus on the mailing list, and if people want to have more technical discussions about plumbing, that's off topic for the WG and you can do that in the IG # 18:50 Zakim sees eprodrom, sandro on the speaker queue # 18:50 aaronpk eprodrom: henry it soundsl ike you're pretty eager to do user stories, you can drop them in on this blank page # 18:50 harry Again, we had to do this because we didn't have agreement on requirement list # 18:50 aaronpk ...it was my intention to get candidate stories up ASAP, if you have something you'd like to throw in there you can do it # 18:50 aaronpk ...I did not mean t osuggest it was not ok to add user stories # 18:51 harry So rough consensus on a small set of user-stories seems reasonable to push through # 18:51 AnnB btw, I agree with bblfish that this discussion is kind of confusing .. sounds like the chairs had some discussion on the side, and have a plan # 18:51 aaronpk tantek: okay does that help clarify the proposal? # 18:51 aaronpk ...does everyone understand this week vs next week? # 18:51 harry Yes, chairs have regular meetings, that's normal AnnB # 18:51 eprodrom Text I had was " PROPOSED by 10 Feb user stories on wiki to be voted on between 10-17 Feb with approval on 17 Feb" # 18:51 bblfish that's fine, just trying to get the understanding of the timetable clear. # 18:51 harry particularly when Working Group needs to focus on getting chartered deliverables though. # 18:52 eprodrom bblfish I can't commit to having them ready before 10 Feb # 18:52 sandro +1 with "votes" being feedback about user stories, and who cares about them, more than up-vs-down # 18:52 eprodrom But I will try to work on them in the next 48 hours # 18:52 bblfish +1 though we need to have some template stories up a.s.a.p so that we know how people want to write up u.stories # 18:52 tantek +1 for "I would use this user story personally", +1 would implement this story on the client, +1 for would implement on the server # 18:52 AnnB oh .. that's not what I thought this vote was about # 18:53 aaronpk ???: we'l see a few user stories come out as most exciting # 18:53 aaronpk tantek: important to capture implementer interest as well # 18:53 eprodrom AnnB: they're describing what the "voting" on the wiki will mean # 18:53 eprodrom It's kind of recursive, sorry # 18:53 aaronpk tantek: not seeing any objections to the schedule # 18:53 AnnB I thought this particular vote was about the schedule for next 2 weeks # 18:53 eprodrom AnnB: yes, correct # 18:54 aaronpk RESOLVED: accept evan's proposal for the next two weeks. week 1 is to propose user stories on the wiki, week 2 is to vote on them # 18:54 aaronpk bblfish: evan just wrote that he won't have anything up by the 10th # 18:54 aaronpk tantek: you have until the 10th to add to the wiki page # 18:54 aaronpk tantek: from the 10th to the 17th you have the opportunity to vote # 18:55 Zakim sees bblfish, hhalpin on the speaker queue # 18:55 aaronpk bblfish: is there going to be some discussion about.... it seems like you're trying to push things through at full speed # 18:55 aaronpk tantek: what's been happening for months is we've been reviewing existing APIs # 18:55 aaronpk ...that research has been used to inform the draft list of requiements # 18:55 aaronpk ...which was met with lots of discussion and dissent last week # 18:56 aaronpk ...evan's proposed way of moving past that is to ground the requirements in user stories we can use to drive the requirements # 18:56 Zakim sees bblfish, hhalpin, eprodrom on the speaker queue # 18:56 hhalpin will dial back in a sec jaensen joined the channel
# 18:56 Zakim sees bblfish, hhalpin, eprodrom on the speaker queue # 18:56 aaronpk bblfish: worried that people will be writing user stories in the wrong format, and a week isn't enough time # 18:56 aaronpk ...have to be clear on the type of the story, feeling this is a bit pressed # 18:57 aaronpk tantek: this question has been answered, we have one great story, if you have any question about the format, use that # 18:57 AdamB swat0 uses a numbered list for "user story" # 18:57 Zakim sees bblfish, hhalpin, eprodrom, sandro on the speaker queue # 18:57 aaronpk bblfish: i dont' think you're givingp eople a lot of time to iterate here # 18:57 aaronpk tantek: there has been a lot of iteration in the IG # 18:57 aaronpk ...we just didn't provide any structured way to bring the stories forward, so this is the structure # 18:57 AnnB BUT, my point is, the IG has tried to put use cases forward in the same format as SWAT0 .. what next? # 18:58 KevinMarks we have a call netx week to review, and another week, and we can still iterate # 18:58 Zakim sees bblfish, hhalpin, eprodrom, sandro on the speaker queue # 18:58 Zakim sees hhalpin, eprodrom, sandro on the speaker queue # 18:58 Zakim sees hhalpin, eprodrom, sandro on the speaker queue # 18:58 Zakim sees eprodrom, sandro on the speaker queue # 18:58 eprodrom Sorry, I dropped off # 18:58 aaronpk hhalpin: want to reinforce. "hi I want this whole thing to use RDF" is not a user story # 18:58 Zakim sees eprodrom, sandro on the speaker queue # 18:59 aaronpk ...we cannot and should not deal with out of scope things here # 18:59 aaronpk ..in the mailing list we had a lot of rat-holing, which is on topic on a different list # 18:59 hhalpin AnnB, that obviously didn't work though, which is why we are trying to reduce the amount of text required. # 18:59 aaronpk eprodrom: we are trying to rush, i tehink ideally speaking for the chairs, we would love to have proposals on the table and be able to select a proposal at our F2F # 19:00 aaronpk ...feeling like we can move forward with the social API at the f2f # 19:00 AnnB did you look, hhalpin, at the ones we just wrote? # 19:00 Arnaud bblfish: while I can understand you think we are pushing that's what chairs have to do, everyone will have the opportunity to comment, ask questions, etc. so I don't think you need to worry # 19:00 aaronpk ...if we take this extra time that you are asking for that you put it t ogood use # 19:00 aaronpk ...i'm willing to put in some extra time to get these early user storeies as fast as possible # 19:00 hhalpin Not the new ones, and I'd just add them immediately to the wiki if possible, as that won't take too much time. # 19:00 aaronpk ...i don't think it will take too much editorial work # 19:00 aaronpk ...i would like if you're putting this extra burden on me that you make good use of it # 19:00 KevinMarks instead of extra time now, propose an extension next week if needed then # 19:00 AnnB they are there, Harry # 19:01 aaronpk bblfish: if you can get as many of them done in 2 days time, then other people can look at them and discuss and add to them # 19:01 aaronpk ...because you already have a good idea of the use caseas you want # 19:01 aaronpk ...just so we have a better idea of what you're looking for # 19:01 aaronpk ...will be much easier if we have 4-5 days after seeing yours to add to them # 19:02 AnnB just before the meeting, I moved the one about Federated Groups to another page; didn't have to do with profiles # 19:02 aaronpk sandro: the important thing is that we have solid consensus ont he user stories # 19:02 aaronpk ...but if in 2 weeks some people ahven't read them # 19:02 aaronpk ...we should try our best to actually get feedback from the overwhelming majority of members # 19:03 eprodrom OK, dropped off # 19:03 AnnB thanks for chairing, Tantek! # 19:03 AnnB and scribing Aaron! # 19:04 eprodrom I'm really sorry, it seems like we just lost an opportunity to talk about IBM Connections # 19:04 eprodrom Can we talk to the invited person to present next week? # 19:05 Zakim On IRC I see jaensen, danbri, the_frey, melvster, AdamB, Zakim, RRSAgent, jaakko, Loqi, tantek, eprodrom, hhalpin, AnnB, harry, jasnell, bblfish, wilkie, bigbluehat, jaywink, # 19:05 Zakim ... shepazu, Arnaud, JakeHart, dwhly, mattl, rhiaro, oshepherd_, rektide, nickstenn, KevinMarks, ShaneHudson, pdurbin, ben_thatmust, bret, Tsyesika, ben_thatmustbeme, kylewm, # 19:05 Zakim I don't understand your question, aaronpk. # 19:08 AnnB but, wonder why RRSagent didn't do it timbl joined the channel
timbl joined the channel
# 19:35 Zakim disconnecting the lone participant, elf-pavlik, in T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM # 19:35 Zakim Attendees were Ann, Arnaud, aaronpk, tantek, +1.541.410.aaaa, jasnell, +1.314.777.aabb, AdamB, elf-pavlik, bret, rhiaro_, eprodrom, +33.6.47.14.aacc, bblfish, dromasca, # 19:35 Zakim ... Lloyd_Fassett, bill-looby, Sandro, +1.857.445.aadd, hhalpin, Tsyesika, +1.408.335.aaee, +358.503.28aaff pfefferle, the_frey, timbl, mechanic, bblfish, almereyda and tantek joined the channel
# 21:56 AnnB lots of good 'user stories', documented by EvanP (per discussion in meeting this morning): # 22:01 tantek so much better than abstract lists of API requirements # 22:26 Zakim excuses himself; his presence no longer seems to be needed bblfish, almereyda and tantek joined the channel
AnnB hi Tantek
RRSAgent logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/02/03-social-irc
elf-pavlik Zakim, ??P8 is me
aaronpk ACTION: tantek to come up with a simple proposal for implicit typing based on property names https://www.w3.org/Social/track/issues/4
trackbot Created ACTION-35 - Come up with a simple proposal for implicit typing based on property names https://www.w3.org/social/track/issues/4 [on Tantek Çelik - due 2015-02-10].
KevinMarks 0?
tantek notes we have one user-story so far http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/federatedsocialweb/wiki/SWAT0
Loqi @t :: SWAT0
A posts+tags mobile photo of B
B photo notified
C(follows A) sees it; replies
A&B comment notified
Prev: http://tantek.com/2015/029/t1/swat0-posts-tags-mobile-photo-comment
wilkie and then give to: http://pandoc.amy.gy/