2016-01-05 UTC
jasnell, prtksxna, jasnell_ and jaywink joined the channel
# 07:59 Loqi RESOLVED: Skipping telcons on 12/22 and 12/29, next telcon # 07:59 Loqi Countdown set by eprodrom on 12/15/15 at 10:15am elf-pavlik and shevski joined the channel
shevski joined the channel
tantek joined the channel
azaroth joined the channel
akuckartz joined the channel
RRSAgent joined the channel
# 17:57 Zakim I do not see a conference matching that name scheduled within the next hour, trackbot # 17:58 sandro Arnaud, did you use the host code, or not need to? # 18:02 azaroth present+ Rob_Sanderson # 18:05 rhiaro Arnaud: any objections? anyone looked at them? # 18:05 rhiaro sandro: They contain approval to go to fpwd for two drafts # 18:06 rhiaro ... Reminder, face to face proposed march 16th # 18:06 rhiaro ... Page set up, please specify your expected attendance # 18:06 rhiaro ... As usual, if you're not sure please say so # 18:07 rhiaro ... As you remember I sent regrets for the last few meetings, but noticed that agenda ended at the last call with the post-type discovery draft going to fpwd, and that was postponed to this week # 18:08 rhiaro tantek: We've had this up for a while, a few issues and some resolved # 18:08 rhiaro ... If there are specific issues that must be resolved before we take it to fpwd pleases say what the issue number is # 18:08 rhiaro ... Other than that, general feedback, is it ready or not. I think it's ready. # 18:09 rhiaro ... If you need more time you could object and ask for time # 18:09 tantek PROPOSED: Publish Post Type Discovery as a FPWD # 18:09 azaroth I haven't implemented it, but have read it and see no reason to delay FPWD # 18:10 rhiaro ... For FPWD we don't need implementation, to clarify # 18:11 rhiaro ... I think we can call it resolved. Last call? # 18:11 rhiaro RESOLVED: Publish Post Type Discovery as a FPWD # 18:11 rhiaro ... Sandro, you'll have to send the transition request # 18:12 rhiaro sandro: is it all under respec? or need to be reformatted? # 18:12 rhiaro tantek: I probably have some respec reformatting and all the pubrules checking to do # 18:12 rhiaro sandro: could you do that in the next day or so? then we could do all three documents on thursday # 18:12 Loqi I added a countdown for 1/7 12:00am (#5785) # 18:12 rhiaro tantek: I'll see what I can do, but don't hold up the others # 18:13 rhiaro Arnaud: key part is, tantek you have the ball, once you're done let sandro know # 18:13 rhiaro ... Sandro you can still request the transition in th emeantime dromasca joined the channel
# 18:13 rhiaro ... Ready to go to CR? Still a few issues left, some editorial # 18:13 rhiaro ... 276 in particular postponed because someone was missing # 18:14 rhiaro jasnell: want to ensure that vocabulary document has examples of all features # 18:14 rhiaro ... Examples there don't illustrate everything # 18:14 rhiaro ... I can add those, but PRs would be helpful # 18:15 rhiaro ... tantek opened one about it needing a section on privacy implications, current working draft should have that # 18:15 rhiaro ... would like everyoen to take a look and see ifthat's adequate # 18:15 rhiaro ... Other editorial is 278, updating acknowledgements section, which I will do # 18:15 rhiaro ... 261 talks about lifecycle and naming conventions for extensions, came up at last f2f # 18:17 rhiaro jasnell: 261 was a conversation between sandro and tantek at the f2f # 18:17 rhiaro tantek: I captured because sandro felt strongly about it # 18:17 cwebber2 oh... Arnaud I think it's probably important but I don't have much to say at the moment # 18:17 tantek "Need lifecycle and naming convention guidance for extensions to help possible future convergence and standardization " # 18:17 rhiaro jasnell: goes back to whether we need to capture naming convention or registry for extensions # 18:17 rhiaro ... and whether that needs to be documented in the core draft # 18:18 rhiaro sandro: I don't think so. I mean.. I have been thinking about this a lot and I don't think there's anything we can do right now that will really help # 18:18 rhiaro PROPOSED: Close issue 261 without further action # 18:19 rhiaro RESOLVED: Close issue 261 without further action # 18:19 rhiaro jasnell: next is 276, require valid as2 implementations to use vocabulary where applicable # 18:19 rhiaro ... So when we're using an extension, say schema.org as a type, eg. Person # 18:19 rhiaro ... THe implementor should also use the corresponding core vocabulary type # 18:20 rhiaro ... So the type field would list schema:Person and as:Person # 18:20 rhiaro ... That is so that anyone who doesn't understand the extesion can still make use of that by falling back to core vocab term # 18:20 rhiaro ... Spec says should, issue says make it a MUST # 18:20 tantek as in, prevent extension makers/users from hijacking core spec semantics # 18:21 rhiaro ... I know in the comment thread others said SHOULD is okay # 18:21 rhiaro if you have a really good reason not to use AS2, why are you using AS2 at all? # 18:22 tantek I can't think of any good reason to allow foo:person and allow them to NOT say 'Person" # 18:22 rhiaro ... if someone lists only schema.org, someone who doesn't understand schema.org might not know there is a core type to correlate # 18:22 azaroth q+ to be in favor of MUST # 18:22 rhiaro tantek: I think that when in doubt standards tend to work better when conservative, MUST is more consvertaive. Tightens up interop. # 18:22 rhiaro ... If people feel ambivalent about it, or no strong opinion, we should go with MUST # 18:23 jasnell_ I have no objection to must but think the should is ok # 18:23 Zakim sees azaroth, ben_thatmustbeme on the speaker queue # 18:23 Zakim azaroth, you wanted to be in favor of MUST # 18:23 Zakim sees ben_thatmustbeme on the speaker queue # 18:23 rhiaro azaroth: also in favour of MUST for similar reasons # 18:24 rhiaro ... Should be explicit about what is required, and promoting classes and properties that the standard requires is just part of every day life. To say that you not-must use the features when you don't want to just makes it more difficult for everyone to implement # 18:24 rhiaro ben_thatmustbeme: My only concern is that extensions are forced to have multiple types # 18:24 rhiaro ... if they want their own types. Annoying as a developer. Can live with, but is a nuisance # 18:24 jasnell_ lets perhaps split the question: show of hands in favor of must vs show of hands in favor of keeping it as should # 18:24 azaroth q+ to ask about extensions # 18:25 wilkie "MUST" to promote interop seems strange. do you add MUST for every new thing? hmm. # 18:25 tantek wilkie: yes, MUST is how standards indicate their core requirements # 18:25 Arnaud STRAWPOLL: a) keep it a SHOULD, b) make it a MUST # 18:25 azaroth Right. Extensions that don't conflict with the core wouldn't have multiple types # 18:27 rhiaro jasnell: I would wager to say that everyone could live with MUST # 18:27 rhiaro sandro: only negative on must is chris with -0 # 18:27 cwebber2 I can live with MUST, though I think it's strange to have it that strong # 18:28 rhiaro Arnaud: I'll cast a vote to try to make thins different # 18:28 cwebber2 I think that it would be strange to point to an AS2 implementation and point at a term and say "you didn't include our term, you aren't compliant" # 18:28 rhiaro ... I'm sensitive to tantek's arguement that the more MUST we have the more interop we have # 18:28 wilkie cwebber2: that's essentially exactly how I feel # 18:29 rhiaro <rhiaro> cwebber2 only if there's an applicable type, right? # 18:29 rhiaro <rhiaro> so if there *is* an applicable type, why wouldn't you use it? # 18:29 tantek cwebber2: that's exactly what the MUST is for, so an implementer can't just make up their own duplicate versions of the terms in AS2 Core and claim compliance without using AS2 terms in actuality. # 18:29 rhiaro <rhiaro> if there isn't an applicable as2 type, no big deal # 18:29 jasnell_ thank you cwebber2 .. yeah, it's only applicable if there's an overlapping type in the core # 18:29 rhiaro Arnaud: we don't have to rush if you want to discuss further # 18:30 rhiaro jasnell: I can add language to clarify that this is really when there are overlapping terms # 18:30 rhiaro ... It's not saying you MUST use one every time, only when there's overlap # 18:30 tantek Also, making it a MUST will help force implementers to reveal any specific use-cases to the contrary (i.e. for a SHOULD) # 18:31 rhiaro jasnell: Will get a new wd out this week, and go from there # 18:31 cwebber2 mountain tunnels aren't exactly great for tethering :) # 18:31 rhiaro Arnaud: can we agree to go to CR pendng james's edits? # 18:31 rhiaro sandro: we can't go to CR without figuring out exit criteria, and we should probably ?? tests # 18:31 rhiaro Arnaud: for now we'll let james edit, get it in shape, then tackle those issues next week # 18:32 sandro loves that, perfect scribing .... I did, in fact, says "probably ?? tests" :-) # 18:32 rhiaro tantek: just wanted to capture what sandro said # 18:33 Zakim sees azaroth, jasnell_ on the speaker queue # 18:33 rhiaro Arnaud: usually exit criteria means there are two implementations of every feature # 18:33 rhiaro ... doesn't mean they have to be in the same implementation # 18:33 rhiaro sandro: need to clarify what it means to be an implementation # 18:33 rhiaro ... Vague sense we had consensus at face to face, but not clear # 18:33 rhiaro Arnaud: we could talk more now or put at the end of agenda for today # 18:34 rhiaro ... Mostly what's left today is status updates # 18:34 Zakim sees jasnell_, tantek on the speaker queue # 18:34 Zakim jasnell_, you wanted to talk about test suite # 18:34 rhiaro jasnell: as far as test suite is concerned, I did create a new github repo to start collecting sample activitystreams documents # 18:34 rhiaro ... PRs to add samples to these would be helpful, I'll add as I have time (which I haven't) # 18:35 rhiaro ... intent of this is to give us a corpus of test documents that illustrate every feature of the vocabulary # 18:35 rhiaro ... so that implementations can go test to make sure that they are compliant # 18:35 rhiaro Arnaud: so what's important is that when we publish the cr draft is we have a pointer that leads people to a page where they can understand where to start and how to test their implementation # 18:36 rhiaro Arnaud: okay if it's not complete, but we at least need a pointer in the document # 18:36 rhiaro sandro: gonna be some press around it saying this is our call for implementations # 18:36 rhiaro ... so good to have instructions (complete) on day one # 18:36 rhiaro ... but should have it ready to go and copmlete before CR # 18:36 rhiaro ... Depending on whether we're trying to sneak through or get something good here # 18:37 rhiaro tantek: from my understanding we don't actually need to have a complete test suite to enter CR, even to have a test suite at all, but the more we do have the more real it looks and the more implementable it looks # 18:37 rhiaro ... so this is going to have to be a judgement call # 18:37 rhiaro ... strictly from a process perspective we can enter CR as long as we have agreed on exit criteria # 18:38 rhiaro ... The biggest challenge with the test suite is not to have one that's complete but to have a test suite that lets us have some common understanidng # 18:38 rhiaro ... last time we got into a heavy discussion about the test suite there were different opinions about what that meant # 18:38 rhiaro ... if we have to figure this out, the biggest challenge is how to say this implementation does something with the vocabulary that makes it necessary to be in the spec # 18:38 rhiaro ... If all we have is tests that converts a stream between syntaxes, all it's testing is syntax parsing, not justifying anything in the vocabulary # 18:39 rhiaro ... That's the biggest problem of considering whether a feature is 'implemented\ # 18:39 sandro +1 tantek -- the tests should really show the vocabulary being used # 18:39 rhiaro ... Don't have a proposal, more just want to raise this issue as an area of past disagreemtn that we need to resolve on # 18:39 rhiaro ... Also an area that evan and myself have disagreed on in the past # 18:39 rhiaro ... other opinions on this, people should speak up # 18:39 rhiaro ... say what they think a featur emeans, and what testing that feature means # 18:39 azaroth +1 to tantek, and +1 to not delaying -entering- CR before having the test suite # 18:40 rhiaro ... testing producers, can do with a validator # 18:40 rhiaro ... testing consumers, have a suite of documents that james was talking about # 18:40 rhiaro ... How you test wehther the application really understands it is still open ended I believe # 18:41 rhiaro ... i think cwebber2 and I were talking after the f2f... understanding I came to is that we should have a validator that at least gives a simple human readable description of what the machine readable syntax says # 18:41 rhiaro ... Producers check their output against this validator # 18:41 rhiaro ... And they send us an email saying all the terms they used and checked against the validator # 18:41 rhiaro ... and we keep a table of all the terms they said that about # 18:41 rhiaro ... and Consumers, need to use our suite of documents to tell us which terms their consumer can consume # 18:42 rhiaro ... and their good faith assertion that it consumes them properly and understands what they mean # 18:42 rhiaro ... and they might want to test that side by side with a validator. Look at a document in our validator and their thing, and say if they agree they make sense in the same way # 18:42 rhiaro ... So we have a list of terms people produce and consume and believ ethey do so correctly because it aligns with our validator # 18:43 rhiaro ... biggest challenge is validating that a vocabulary is being used correctly # 18:43 rhiaro ... is one thing, but part of the purpose of exiting CR is saying # 18:43 rhiaro ... if that something is abstrac tor concrete... by concrete I mean in a UI # 18:43 tantek the challenge is whether the abstract vocabulary does something specifically in the UX # 18:43 rhiaro sandro: I'd like the reports from people not just to be a checklist of terms, but a paragraph saying what they're doin gwith it # 18:44 rhiaro ... Hope that would help get the ball rolling if people see what others ar edoing # 18:44 rhiaro Arnaud: sandro since you seem opinionated about what we are to do, can you make a proposal? # 18:44 rhiaro sandro: Sure.. the hard work is going to be having the test suite and validator and collecting results # 18:44 rhiaro ... I think we need volunteers to do all those things # 18:45 rhiaro Arnaud: Quite a bit of work, not sure if we can afford to wait for it all to be done for CR # 18:45 rhiaro ... Would be in favour of adding framework set up, publish CR with pointer, and keep on working on it # 18:45 rhiaro sandro: be nice to have the beginnings of a test suite and hopefully a partial validator # 18:46 rhiaro tantek: this is where if we are specific in the exit criteria and we say that we say there are two or more implemenations of every feature where an implemenation means they are producing/consuming syntax correctly, and also producing some result that is unique to that vocabulary term as compared to other terms # 18:46 rhiaro ... some language like that to put strenght into CR exit critiera # 18:46 rhiaro ... that buys us time to create broader test framework # 18:46 rhiaro ... we don't even need to have it partially done before CR # 18:46 rhiaro ... I don't want to delay CR based on test suite # 18:47 rhiaro sandro: I'm not going to stand on the road over this, but If eel like in terms of developer engagement, but I'd rather hit them with one.. here's a time to look at AS2, and have the ducks in a row # 18:47 rhiaro ... and here's one or two implementations from inside WG # 18:47 rhiaro ... as a developer I'd have a much more positive reaction # 18:47 rhiaro ... if it all says coming soon, I could ignore # 18:47 rhiaro Arnaud: I agree we don't want to have nothing, but there's a middle ground # 18:48 rhiaro ... We have a basic framework set up, and say as we move forward we'll add # 18:48 rhiaro sandro: has to be enough that i can start to play right now # 18:48 rhiaro ... has to be a working validator for at least some stuff # 18:48 rhiaro ... if I can't write code today and get in a feedback loop with the WG # 18:49 rhiaro tantek: I sympathise with what sandro is saying from a developer perspective. In the braoder view, AS2 has been in the discussion for years before w3c etc # 18:49 rhiaro ... Some level of built up expectation that we have inherited # 18:49 rhiaro ... This is not brand new, it's been maturing for years # 18:49 rhiaro ... Expectation that more of these tools and tests exist # 18:49 rhiaro ... Absence may give people the wrong impression # 18:49 rhiaro ... The fact that as2 has been going on for years before w3c has touched it. People have heard of it, already have an idea of what it means # 18:49 rhiaro ... There's been a lot of work, we're not just rubber stamping, we need to show developers where the work is # 18:50 rhiaro ... Devleopers can say 'okay now I get why this is real now' # 18:50 rhiaro ... We have to figure something out, I don't know how # 18:50 rhiaro Arnaud: i don't think we're far away, just a matter of finding the sweet spot so we can got to CR without waiting for too long # 18:50 rhiaro ... Suggest we leave it at this for today, sandro will put proposal together # 18:50 rhiaro ... Feel free to discuss between now and next week # 18:51 rhiaro ... Docs approved for publication last week. Sandro? # 18:51 rhiaro sandro: I think it's in my lap at this point. We can't use echidna for fpwd, so a bunch of manual steps, which can only be done on thursday # 18:51 Loqi I added a countdown for 1/7 12:00am (#5786) # 18:52 rhiaro sandro: I have to convert to static html and run a bunch of tests # 18:52 rhiaro Arnaud: maybe thursday, if not tuesay next week # 18:52 rhiaro ... Reminder on giving everybody until 12th Jan to raise issues in ActivityPump and micropub # 18:53 rhiaro ... Finally, admin.. looking at tracker, a couple of issues # 18:53 rhiaro ... when I looked at actions, baffled by list of open actions # 18:53 rhiaro ... Don't care to go through this now, but highly recommend that people look, several of you have open actions # 18:54 rhiaro ... Either they have become irrelevant or you can tell us what's stopping you # 18:54 rhiaro ... But looks silly to have actions due over a year ago still open # 18:54 rhiaro ... Please ahve a closer look and see where cleanup can be done? # 18:54 rhiaro ... Next call next week, resuming normal weekly callls # 18:55 rhiaro sandro: on the open actions, some of mine are obsolete and we basically just stopped using the tracker # 18:55 rhiaro ... should just mark as done? Others are more debateable? # 18:55 rhiaro ... Shouldl people just mark them done or invovle the rest of the group? # 18:55 rhiaro Arnaud: personally I'm fine with people marking them as done # 18:56 rhiaro sandro: mark as closed if it's not controversial, pending review if you want to talk about it # 18:56 rhiaro ... If there's something that really ought to be done, please do it! # 18:58 Zakim As of this point the attendees have been Arnaud, csarven, rhiaro, aaronpk, shanehudson, sandro, elf-pavlik, kevinmarks, wilkie, eprodrom, jasnell, ben_thatmustbeme, cwebber, # 18:58 Zakim ... tantek, hhalpin, james, tsyesika, wseltzer, akuckartz, shepazu, Rob_Sanderson, Shane_, rene, cwebber2, Benjamin_Young, bengo, ben_thatmust, KevinMarks_, jasnell_, MUST # 19:00 rhiaro jasnell_: do you have time for a quick (hopefully) question? # 19:01 rhiaro but all the turtle->json-ld converters (disclaimer: didn't try many) use @graph by default # 19:01 rhiaro which meant I ended up quickly hacking together my own just for collections # 19:01 rhiaro Which is just kind of inconvenient. Is there a good reason @graph isn't valid? # 19:02 rhiaro (since I store all my blog data as turtle, I thought it would be a couple of lines to output AS2, but can't with the rdf library I currently use, and web services I tried use @graph ) # 19:04 rhiaro oh hm, on that note I believe in the AS2 spec it says AS2 is a 'subset' of JSON-LD, but isn't clear about what the subset is. But maybe I need to re-read. # 19:07 rhiaro or not because normal json consumers will be confused? # 19:07 jasnell_ but normal json consumers wouldn't know how to deal with it # 19:08 rhiaro having actually typed this it makes more sense than when it was just in my head ;) # 19:08 rhiaro I don't know the ins and outs of json-ld, I just like to throw turtle at converters # 19:09 rhiaro possibly the converter I was using did that because I had multiple contexts # 19:10 rhiaro although... I think it did it when I only had as2 as well jaywink joined the channel
shepazu joined the channel
Arnaud1 joined the channel
# 20:20 cwebber2 I'm amazed that a connection held up that long.. we were traveling through the snow covered mountains formerly traversed by the donner party :) # 20:36 Zakim leaving. As of this point the attendees have been Arnaud, csarven, rhiaro, aaronpk, shanehudson, sandro, elf-pavlik, kevinmarks, wilkie, eprodrom, jasnell, ben_thatmustbeme, # 20:36 Zakim ... cwebber, tantek, hhalpin, james, tsyesika, wseltzer, akuckartz, shepazu, Rob_Sanderson, Shane_, rene, cwebber2, Benjamin_Young, bengo, ben_thatmust, KevinMarks_, jasnell_, MUST
ben_thatmustbeme lol, thanks Loqi
RRSAgent logging to http://www.w3.org/2016/01/05-social-irc
Loqi Alehors made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2016-01-05]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=87439&oldid=87422
azaroth present+ Rob_Sanderson
sandro tantek, can you update https://github.com/w3c-social/post-type-discovery to explain which of the two drafts it links to is the real one?
rhiaro tantek: this is where if we are specific in the exit criteria and we say that we say there are two or more implemenations of every feature where an implemenation means they are producing/consuming syntax correctly, and also producing some result that is unique to that vocabulary term as compared to other terms