2015-01-27 UTC
the_frey, jaensen_, shepazutu, jaywink, pfefferle, bblfish, bblfish_, jaensen, ben_thatmust, cwebber2`, danbri, AnnB, tantek and AnnB_ joined the channel
jasnell, jasnell_ and eprodrom joined the channel
jasnell, eprodrom, ShaneHudson and bblfish joined the channel
# 17:57 eprodrom jasnell: I just added an agenda item to discuss the status on AS 2.0 # 17:57 eprodrom tantek: good morning to you sir! # 17:58 eprodrom Can you speak to where we're at? # 17:58 tantek eprodrom: you may need to hard refresh the wiki / agenda to get latest version # 17:59 jasnell ok. the short version is that there was an initial hold up on the w3c side that harry described as an "HR issue", then there were a couple of html validation bugs to fix. Looks like publication is currently scheduled for this Thursday # 17:59 tantek hopes to make it to the Socialwg/Social API/Requirements discussion # 17:59 eprodrom In the agenda! # 18:00 eprodrom trackbot, start meeting RRSAgent joined the channel
Zakim joined the channel
# 18:00 Zakim ok, trackbot; I see T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM scheduled to start now # 18:00 eprodrom Zakim, who is on the call? # 18:00 Zakim T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM has not yet started, eprodrom # 18:00 Zakim On IRC I see RRSAgent, bblfish, ShaneHudson, eprodrom, jasnell, AnnB, tantek, danbri, shepazu, ben_thatmust, jaensen, the_frey, JakeHart, mattl, bret, dwhly_, KevinMarks, Arnaud, # 18:00 Zakim ... rhiaro, ben_thatmustbeme, bigbluehat, wilkie, pdurbin, Loqi, nickstenn, oshepherd, rektide_, kylewm, aaronpk, trackbot, sandro, wseltzer # 18:00 eprodrom Apparently by like 30 seconds # 18:00 eprodrom Zakim, who is on the call? # 18:00 Zakim T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM has not yet started, eprodrom # 18:01 Zakim On IRC I see RRSAgent, bblfish, ShaneHudson, eprodrom, jasnell, AnnB, tantek, danbri, shepazu, ben_thatmust, jaensen, the_frey, JakeHart, mattl, bret, dwhly_, KevinMarks, Arnaud, # 18:01 Zakim ... rhiaro, ben_thatmustbeme, bigbluehat, wilkie, pdurbin, Loqi, nickstenn, oshepherd, rektide_, kylewm, aaronpk, trackbot, sandro, wseltzer # 18:01 eprodrom Did I miss something in my incantation? # 18:01 eprodrom I have 13:01 on my clock # 18:02 eprodrom Zakim, who is on the call? # 18:02 Zakim T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM has not yet started, eprodrom # 18:02 mattl hey... not calling in, but GNU social got a ton more users thanks to Twitter banning a user. # 18:02 Zakim On IRC I see RRSAgent, bblfish, ShaneHudson, eprodrom, jasnell, AnnB, tantek, danbri, shepazu, ben_thatmust, jaensen, the_frey, JakeHart, mattl, bret, dwhly_, KevinMarks, Arnaud, # 18:02 Zakim ... rhiaro, ben_thatmustbeme, bigbluehat, wilkie, pdurbin, Loqi, nickstenn, oshepherd, rektide_, kylewm, aaronpk, trackbot, sandro, wseltzer # 18:02 Zakim ok, Arnaud; that matches T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM # 18:02 eprodrom Thanks Arnaud # 18:02 mattl eprodrom: if you have the db of the old StatusNet wiki, it would be great to get a copy :) # 18:02 eprodrom mattl: OK, I can try and get that to you # 18:02 Arnaud but for some reason it doesn't happen automatically # 18:02 eprodrom Zakim, who is on the call? # 18:02 Zakim On the phone I see eprodrom, jasnell, aaronpk, Arnaud, KevinMarks, Ann, wilkie # 18:03 AnnB has never heard Zakim play music before! # 18:03 Arnaud fyi: I'm officially on paternity leave for 2 weeks :-) # 18:03 AnnB Arnaud .. really????? # 18:03 eprodrom scribe: wilkie # 18:04 AnnB wow! a new babe? what "flavor" did you get? # 18:05 eprodrom PROPOSED: Alec Le Hors becomes youngest honorary member # 18:05 AnnB do you have any girls? # 18:05 eprodrom RESOLVED: extend honorary membership to youngest ever member # 18:05 AnnB yay for you Henry! I saw a sweet pic of you on FB # 18:06 rhiaro aw man, audio has gone underwater-style already... I blame eduroma # 18:06 wilkie eprodrom: if we are ready to go, unless we are waiting for somebody in particular. tantek will be joining shortly # 18:06 wilkie eprodrom: first step: approval of our minutes from last week # 18:06 wilkie eprodrom: any objections to approving these minutes? # 18:07 wilkie eprodrom: next meeting is Feb. 3rd, there's no reason to not have this meeting unless any objections? # 18:08 wilkie eprodrom: we have a few that have sitting on the queue for a while # 18:08 wilkie eprodrom: one that came up last week was the json-ld context for the activity streams namespace. not sure where that landed # 18:09 wilkie jasnell: there is some magic incantation that needs to be done to serve the json-ld properly. sandro may offer some insight. # 18:09 wilkie jasnell: it is queued up and part of the publication of the draft, but I need to follow up with the team # 18:10 wilkie eprodrom: another action on the list is to look at social apis # 18:10 wilkie eprodrom: we should add talking about this to next week so we can mark that one off harry joined the channel
# 18:11 wilkie jasnell: tantek is going to go through the microformat examples, there's a lot, he may not have done all of them # 18:11 Zakim the conference code is 7625 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), harry # 18:11 harry dialing in, sorry late from another meeting # 18:12 wilkie jasnell: (wrt speaking out to people) still getting a list and reaching out to people, some may need IE status # 18:13 wilkie eprodrom: other open actions... "archiving osf blog posts" that may be open for some time # 18:13 wilkie jasnell: the archives are available, we just need to have someone volunteer to do that work and have a place set up to put it # 18:14 wilkie eprodrom: I went to the social IG call last week to discuss the process and present social apis to the IG. it went well # 18:14 harry Note that the archives are available as a SQL dump from drupal # 18:14 wilkie eprodrom: a very open discussion about the process that seemed helpful and there was a general agreement and approval of what we've done by the IG # 18:14 harry so someone would have to 1) reset-up drupal and 2) snapshot the blogs as HTML. # 18:15 wilkie eprodrom: one thing that did come up is that most of the APIs we reviewed were primarily US focused and it was noted we should look at networks in other parts of the world # 18:15 wilkie eprodrom: I took that as an action. my ability to navigate documentation in Russian and Chinese is slim, but I'll give it a good effort. # 18:15 wilkie eprodrom: the idea was to see if there were significant patterns in these APIs not found in Western social networks # 18:16 harry Note that Jeff is going to discuss Social with Weibo in two weeks # 18:16 wilkie AnnB: yes, is there a difference between these networks. We do have members who are in China, only a few in Russia, but some may be recommended [to help] # 18:16 KevinMarks historically, several of them adopted opensocial and had some mapping; the differences were often about payment # 18:16 wilkie eprodrom: between a few members, most of these countries are covered. I feel like I can look at the bottom and read through the documentation so I could collaborate # 18:17 wilkie eprodrom: here is the list. part of this may be to reach out to these organizations. # 18:17 wilkie eprodrom: any other issues we have not captured? any actions we should cover? # 18:17 harry Note that minor HTML issues have delayed publication of AS 2.0 till Thursday. # 18:17 AnnB s/is there a diff/ I wondered if there is a diff/ # 18:17 wilkie eprodrom: time to move on to the next agenda item Tsyesika joined the channel
# 18:18 AnnB hmm, Harry .. re: Weibo .. that's interesting # 18:18 wilkie eprodrom: we are tasked with coming up with a social api. the process we are following to do so is the following # 18:18 harry yes, its a f2f meeting, we'll see what happens # 18:18 wilkie eprodrom: we identified a number of APIs throughout the web and we've looked at what they do # 18:19 wilkie eprodrom: we've looked at twitter, facebook, etc and open source pump.io, etc and some from non-specific standardization e.g. linked data platform # 18:19 wilkie eprodrom: we've covered quite a bit and our next step is gathering from these multiple apis and coming up with a set of requirements for our API # 18:19 tantek q+ to suggest a simpler approach to API *requirements*, based on a previous group resolution, vs. "nice to haves" # 18:20 wilkie eprodrom: we've talked about them a lot and documenting them online, but the time is rapidly arriving when we need to decide what these requirements are to move forward with a candidate proposal # 18:20 wilkie eprodrom: the idea is if we can approve a list of requirements, then we can start soliciting proposals and can measure the quality of the proposals based on those requirements # 18:21 wilkie eprodrom: we had a list of requirements earlier and should be updated and we should discuss if these requirements are good for upcoming proposals # 18:21 wilkie eprodrom: one thing we can do is say "great, these are fine" and move on, or we can look at these and rewrite or elaborate on them further # 18:22 wilkie eprodrom: my goal is to move the process further # 18:22 Zakim tantek, you wanted to suggest a simpler approach to API *requirements*, based on a previous group resolution, vs. "nice to haves" # 18:22 wilkie eprodrom: it would be fantastic to have looked at proposals before the face to face Lloyd_Fassett joined the channel
# 18:22 wilkie tantek: there are many ways to pick features and requirements. # 18:23 wilkie tantek: on the lower end of the spectrum to just decide politically: go through a list and vote on each point elf-pavlik_ joined the channel
# 18:23 wilkie tantek: we've taken a slightly better approach so far; we've researched existing APIs # 18:23 eprodrom Zakim, who's making noise? # 18:23 Zakim eprodrom, listening for 13 seconds I heard sound from the following: aaronpk (8%), tantek (80%), ??P15 (76%) # 18:24 wilkie tantek: what would be better than that would be to annotate which requirements belong to what existing examples and what don't # 18:24 Zakim harry, listening for 19 seconds I heard sound from the following: tantek (77%), ??P15 (25%) # 18:24 wilkie tantek: right now we don't know which requirements are based on an example or not # 18:24 wilkie tantek: there is still a better method: basing requirements on use cases # 18:24 Zakim bblfish, listening for 18 seconds I heard sound from the following: tantek (59%) # 18:24 AnnB such is life, elf! # 18:24 harry I suggest that you make your points in IRC elf or dial-back in with another connection. # 18:24 wilkie tantek: looking at use cases we have already chosen to adopt there are only one so far. the only one we have resolved to adopt is SWAT0 # 18:25 wilkie tantek: therefore, all requirements should be adopted to follow ONLY what SWAT0 needs and all else is pushed to nice-to-have # 18:26 wilkie eprodrom: I understand the point, but that is not the procedure we agreed upon and have been doing for the last many weeks # 18:26 wilkie eprodrom: we have done reviews to take requirements from those reviews. if SWAT0 is all we want, we could have saved ourselves a lot of work # 18:27 wilkie eprodrom: SWAT0 is not intended to be a social API usecase, it is a federation usecase. # 18:27 wilkie tantek: there is nothing wrong with research and documentation, but the current set of requirements is too big for a first draft # 18:28 wilkie The IG though... they are doing use-cases. that was the point of us NOT DOING THEM # 18:28 wilkie bblfish: I like swat0, but don't we have an IG that builds up use cases? some kind of community group? # 18:28 tantek no the point is we only one have use case WE HAVE APPROVED # 18:28 wilkie bblfish: I don't really think, if I look at the requirements, I don't think they are difficult to do. # 18:28 AnnB yes, socialIG ... has lots of use cases, just not in common template format # 18:28 harry The IG had a slowdown due to chair changing. # 18:29 tantek there are lots of use-cases. there is only one use case that Social Web WG has formally adopted. # 18:29 tantek I don't believe any claims of "don't think they are difficult" unless you have it already running # 18:29 wilkie bblfish: the idea is to have an API that has all of them, and it may not be necessary for the WG to list all cases, but seeing all features together would be nice # 18:29 jasnell would recommend that others match the requirements up against their existing implementations as well # 18:30 wilkie bblfish: you can add audio, video, all kinds of things, in similar fashion # 18:30 tantek with all due respect, I don't think anyone is qualified to say something is "easy" unless they've already *SHIPPED* it, e.g. on their own website # 18:30 Loqi sandro: ben_thatmustbeme left you a message on 1/20 at 12:26pm: i'll be co-organizing IWC Cambridge 2015, can you confirm that we have a venue for those dates? 2015-03-19/20? # 18:31 jasnell the requirements list can be simplified and achieve the same result # 18:31 wilkie harry: tantek is saying take the minimal use case agreed upon and add to that, and evan is about developing the list of potental requirements that we can shave down # 18:31 wilkie harry: the real issue is that we don't have a draft and it is really hard to whiteboard an API draft from scratch, which is why we have done that research # 18:32 bblfish tantek. You can ask 9 implementations from the LDP group, to work out what easy is . I have built one by myself, so if one person can get implement it, that makes it easy. That's what I am basing my statement on. # 18:32 wilkie harry: it, as a superset, is quite big. to resolve the tension, if somebody wants to whiteboard the draft and looks at the requirements we have made progress and we can say "this is not necessary for swat0" or "hey I'll need this for X" # 18:32 tantek bblfish - you were going to make all that work on your own site? have you? # 18:32 tantek I don't believe the 9 implementations report in the context of Social Web WG # 18:32 wilkie harry: my proposal is to let evan or whomever else to work on this, do a draft of it, and let tantek criticise it # 18:33 harry They in other words, let's just whiteboard something, as driven by SWAT0 and Evan's empirical work # 18:33 bblfish there are pieces not implemented, but that does not make them difficult tantek to implement. It just requires agreeement # 18:34 wilkie tantek: a point to harry's claim the requirements are easy: I'm going to say if you haven't shipped the requirements, you can't say it is easy # 18:34 wilkie tantek: I won't believe you if you haven't shipped # 18:34 Zakim elf-pavlik, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: KevinMarks (14%), tantek (39%), Harry (40%) # 18:34 wilkie tantek: if you look at the process we agreed on (pasted the url) the first step is the requirements of the social api, and I am suggesting a concrete way of doing that: # 18:35 harry KevinMarks, ping or just type "Zakim, unmute me" # 18:36 aaronpk KevinMarks: that happened to me too. not sure how. # 18:36 wilkie eprodrom: another mechanism we could use is to formalize # 18:36 wilkie eprodrom: if we ask the IG to do it, what kind of timeframe would it take # 18:36 tantek q+ to note that IG function is to *provide* use-cases, not *approve*. The Social Web WG must approve use-cases explicitly. # 18:36 Zakim sees AnnB, harry, tantek on the speaker queue # 18:36 wilkie eprodrom: if we cannot go forward without the IG making those use cases, we'll need to ask them what their timeframe is or we do them internally in the WG # 18:36 Zakim sees on the phone: eprodrom, jasnell, aaronpk, Arnaud, KevinMarks, Ann, bblfish, bret (muted), rhiaro (muted), Sandro, Lloyd_Fassett, ShaneHudson (muted), hhalpin, tantek (muted), # 18:36 Zakim ... elf-pavlik (muted), Harry (muted), wilkie # 18:37 wilkie eprodrom: another option is to take what we have and then look just at what is needed for SWAT0 and everything else is nice-to-have # 18:37 wilkie eprodrom: to be frank, SWAT0 is not a social api use-case # 18:37 tantek q+ to also note that I specifically said we can *start* with accepted use-cases as of today for draft API requirements, and then we can iterate with more use-case driven requirements as we approve them in the future. let's remove dependencies. # 18:37 Zakim sees AnnB, harry, tantek on the speaker queue # 18:37 wilkie eprodrom: for me, I don't think it is sufficient social api nor reaches the minimum social networking we expect from a social api # 18:38 Zakim sees AnnB, harry, tantek on the speaker queue # 18:38 Zakim sees AnnB, harry, tantek, sandro on the speaker queue # 18:38 Zakim sees harry, tantek, sandro on the speaker queue # 18:39 wilkie AnnB: in regard to the usecases in the IG, which I am chairing, we have many scenarios and we have maybe too much. # 18:39 wilkie AnnB: question I have for the WG is "what would you want to see and what format would it be in" what would be the most useful way to give you [the usecases]? # 18:40 wilkie eprodrom: I think the use cases you posted are very detailed and there's a lot in here, but I think what we want is a checklist we can compare a proposal against # 18:40 wilkie eprodrom: "this proposal doesn't have a way to post content, so this isn't good for this use case" # 18:40 tantek I actually don't want a checklist - because that's again likely political rather than user-based # 18:41 tantek AnnB, for each use-case, we need a BRIEF summary of the user-interactions. # 18:41 wilkie AnnB: I think the IG needs guidance on what is useful # 18:42 tantek all use-cases should have a *brief* user-scenario at the top # 18:42 wilkie eprodrom: my concern is if we do these whole user scenarios for this kind of API requirements I think that is months of work # 18:42 wilkie AnnB: I agree. I think that's where we are stuck and need a new direction # 18:42 Zakim sees harry, tantek, sandro on the speaker queue # 18:42 wilkie eprodrom: not sure if we can do briefer ones or if there is another way to do this. if we hold out for full user scenarios it is unlikely we can do things promptly. # 18:43 Zakim sees tantek, sandro, harry on the speaker queue # 18:43 Zakim sees tantek, sandro, harry, bblfish on the speaker queue # 18:43 Zakim tantek, you wanted to note that IG function is to *provide* use-cases, not *approve*. The Social Web WG must approve use-cases explicitly. and to also note that I specifically said # 18:43 Zakim ... we can *start* with accepted use-cases as of today for draft API requirements, and then we can iterate with more use-case driven requirements as we approve them in the future. # 18:43 Zakim sees sandro, harry, bblfish on the speaker queue # 18:43 KevinMarks defining and implementing things with no use is months of work # 18:44 wilkie tantek: I think I answered Ann's question on what to provide. I do agree that IG use cases are detailed and lengthy, which is good, they need a summary of steps. much like SWAT0 that fits in a tweet # 18:44 wilkie tantek: goes back to the IG: a summary of steps is what we want # 18:44 Zakim sees sandro, harry, bblfish on the speaker queue # 18:44 wilkie tantek: I also agree with concerns about not a complete API and that it may take months of work to come up with usecases. # 18:45 wilkie tantek: this is why we should not wait for the IG usecases but just immediately go forward with even just a small draft with the usecases we have and extend with new cases later # 18:45 KevinMarks the assumption that completeness is necessary is how we end in the weeds # 18:45 wilkie tantek: so when people come and say "I need this feature" they can make a claim upon the draft we have # 18:46 elf-pavlik i'll try to write something on importance of *extensibility* for this API, this way we just provide clear path to add support for all kind of requirements which will come up down the road! # 18:46 wilkie tantek: my point is that I do believe we can come up with small incremental usecases if we need to. we don't need to wait. # 18:46 wilkie tantek: the IG does the work, but does not approve them. the WG approves and accepts them one at a time. # 18:46 Zakim sees sandro, harry, bblfish on the speaker queue # 18:47 wilkie sandro: one more vote for tweetable scenarios # 18:47 tantek sandro: definitely a vote for tweetable scenarios # 18:47 Zakim sees on the phone: eprodrom, jasnell, aaronpk, Arnaud, KevinMarks, Ann, bblfish, bret (muted), rhiaro (muted), Sandro, Lloyd_Fassett, hhalpin, tantek, elf-pavlik (muted), wilkie, # 18:47 wilkie sandro: even if we start small with SWAT0, it is hard to go from something that expresses SWAT0 to something larger. # 18:48 KevinMarks if it's in your head, you should be abel to write use cases for it # 18:48 wilkie sandro: I think it is valuable to have a larger roadmap in mind. # 18:48 AnnB distilling info to small bits IS necessary (re: suggestions for Social IG) .... and takes time to do! :-) # 18:48 tantek sandro: "maybe we don't all build that all at once" # 18:48 Zakim elf-pavlik, listening for 13 seconds I heard sound from the following: eprodrom (47%), jasnell (38%) # 18:48 wilkie sandro: evan, what process do you want for editing # 18:48 tantek "don't build that all at once" = minimal requirements at first, and grow (build) more incrementally # 18:48 AnnB time better spend, though, than moving our scenarios to common template format # 18:49 wilkie eprodrom: look at each of the apis we reviewed and pull out relevant parts. lots of work and hopefully we have volunteers. # 18:49 wilkie eprodrom: I think adding questions on discussion page or mailing list are good # 18:49 Zakim On the phone I see eprodrom, jasnell, aaronpk, Arnaud, KevinMarks, Ann, bblfish, bret (muted), rhiaro (muted), Sandro, Lloyd_Fassett, hhalpin, tantek (muted), elf-pavlik (muted), # 18:50 bret jasnell, local mute dosnt get everything, only trust Zakim mute # 18:50 wilkie eprodrom: I'd like to point out that maybe 60% of these requirements are covered by the open social activity streams api # 18:50 tantek I greatly prefer "collection" or "set" for a user-facing "thing" that users put other things into # 18:50 tantek "container" sounds too abstract / programmery # 18:50 harry I think my proposal is we let Evan and whoever else is interested draft an API that fits at least SWAT0 # 18:50 wilkie eprodrom: it's really when we get down to endpoints that aren't those 5 major endpoints that it gets strange # 18:51 Zakim elf-pavlik, listening for 10 seconds I heard sound from the following: KevinMarks (42%) # 18:51 jasnell doesn't mind what color the bikeshed is painted. 'container' is a perfectly fine color # 18:51 wilkie harry: we are at an impasse. tantek's fear is legitimate and we shouldn't have a monster api with no implementors. # 18:51 tantek jasnell - and I say users do care, and thus it matters # 18:51 Zakim elf-pavlik, listening for 10 seconds I could not identify any sounds # 18:51 wilkie harry: at the same time, evan's fear that SWAT0 is not sufficient is legitimate # 18:52 jasnell tantek: and I'm saying that right now's it's not critically important that we decide what to call it. # 18:52 tantek jasnell - if you don't care, then change it to "collection" # 18:52 wilkie harry: so, let's make a draft with requirements, and mark those that are good for swat0, mark the others as such, and use that as a place for discussion # 18:52 tantek jasnell from our experience in indiewebcamp - that term resonates / explains much better # 18:52 wilkie harry: we need a place to add/subtract features and discuss these features # 18:53 Zakim elf-pavlik, listening for 12 seconds I heard sound from the following: bblfish (100%), Harry (79%) # 18:53 AnnB it's helpful to start with SOMEthing, which gives something to focus on, discuss, edit, improve # 18:53 wilkie bblfish: I think the problem that things that seem complicated may in fact be simple # 18:53 tantek I'll point out that "SWAT0" seeming "light" is flawed, because we don't even have any SWAT0 interop yet. # 18:53 harry sorry, having confusing situation due being on temporary laptop # 18:53 tantek again this is the same problem as the use of "easy" # 18:53 tantek don't say something is "light" or "simple" unless you've shipped it. nicolagreco joined the channel
# 18:54 harry so we should just clearly demarcate in any API what parts are necessary for SWAT0 and what isn't, as tantek said # 18:54 wilkie bblfish: I think one or many could present how they would do things with a base api and that would allow us to make a case that one way is simpler than another # 18:54 tantek harry - exactly - thus we start the requirements bar at "necessary for SWAT0" # 18:54 tantek they aren't *actual* requirements, because they're not *required* # 18:55 wilkie bblfish: in a usecase we could specify that is the criteria of what should be allowed # 18:55 harry I'm just suggesting that if Evan or someone else is drafting an API, they can go with functional requirements greater than SWAT0, just clearly mark those # 18:55 harry should be pretty straightforward, i.e. contacts are needed for SWAT0 # 18:55 wilkie bblfish: for instance URI opaqueness to work with certain criteria of privacy etc # 18:55 tantek I agree to large extent re: use URLs and follow-your-nose discoverability that bblfish is mentioning # 18:55 wilkie bblfish: this is how we can foster a system that may grow perhaps way beyond the scope of what this group is capable of specifying explicitly # 18:56 wilkie eprodrom: one of the requirements in this list is follow-your-nose semantics # 18:57 wilkie eprodrom: most of the APIs we reviewed are single implementation APIs which don't have those semantics. but this is a question for another day # 18:57 elf-pavlik most (all) APIs which we reviewed don't aim at interoperability and extensibility # 18:57 bblfish true: but most of the apis are centralised, so are not at that level examples of what the social web should be :-) # 18:57 tantek q+ re: flaws in existing APIs, lack of URLs, lack of follow-your-nose, too many special APIs just copy/pasted for different types # 18:57 wilkie eprodrom: I think we need to postpone proposing these requirements at this moment # 18:57 Zakim tantek, you wanted to discuss flaws in existing APIs, lack of URLs, lack of follow-your-nose, too many special APIs just copy/pasted for different types # 18:57 wilkie eprodrom: we need to talk about activity streams a little bit # 18:58 wilkie tantek: I want to make a point to agree with bblfish to use URLs and follow-your-nose ideas and use a more minimal API # 18:58 wilkie tantek: I agree with evan that many services do not have that follow-your-nose idea and it would be horrible to implement a similar system # 18:58 wilkie eprodrom: I'll put APIs and follow-your-nose up for next week # 18:59 sandro +1 tantek avoiding replicating unnecessary complexity # 18:59 wilkie eprodrom: I want jasnell and harry to talk about where we are with AS2.0 and the next version of the working draft # 18:59 wilkie jasnell: based on the current process, hopefully draft will be published thursday # 18:59 wilkie jasnell: validation errors and such caused delay. should be good though. # 18:59 wilkie jasnell: we are trying to get the context documents served up with the magic incantation sometime after # 19:00 wilkie harry: the problem is when there is an html error in a document, no matter how small, the webmaster will push back and we have to fix it before we can publish. that's how the w3c process works. # 19:01 wilkie harry: there may be a process change that would make this process easier, but things should be set for thursday unless the webmaster finds something else # 19:01 bblfish q+ btw, we did not cover the testing of the current activities stream 2.0 # 19:01 Zakim bblfish, you typed too many words without commas; I suspect you forgot to start with 'to ...' # 19:01 bblfish btw, we did not cover the testing of the current activities stream 2.0 # 19:01 harry jasnell, stay in IRC and I'll check with webmaster to see if everything is OK post-meeting # 19:01 wilkie eprodrom: we will copy the agenda item for requirements to next week's call # 19:01 AnnB thanks for good chairing, Evan! # 19:02 AnnB and for scribing, Wilkie! # 19:02 wilkie eprodrom: thank you. appreciate your time. talk to you next week # 19:02 Arnaud don't forget to get rrsagent to create the minutes # 19:02 eprodrom trackbot, end meeting # 19:02 Zakim As of this point the attendees have been eprodrom, jasnell, KevinMarks, aaronpk, Arnaud, Ann, wilkie, bblfish, bret, rhiaro, Sandro, Lloyd_Fassett, ShaneHudson, hhalpin, tantek, RRSAgent joined the channel
# 19:03 RRSAgent I'm logging. I don't understand 'make mutes public', elf-pavlik. Try /msg RRSAgent help # 19:03 harry jasnell, give me a few minutes to check in with webmaster and see if we are ready to go # 19:05 eprodrom Thanks everyone! # 19:07 tantek sandro - still around? can you confirm rooms for IndieWebCamp Cambridge March 19-20? # 19:08 harry Also, did we confirm those as the f2f dates? # 19:08 rhiaro I think it was confirmed a couple of weeks ago # 19:09 tantek I'll leave the task of going through past recent minutes up to you Harry # 19:09 harry OK, that makes sense - just making sure we didn't move the dates. Doing a separate indieweb camp after sounds good to me, although sadly I have to examine a Ph.D. thesis on those dates so I might not be able to make it :( # 19:10 harry However, will make f2f of course, and would want to see as many people do both as possible. # 19:10 rhiaro Then if that wasn't enough, libreplanet is 21-22 # 19:11 harry jasnell, webmaster wants me to do some minor changes, I'll see if I can get them in about 10 minutes # 19:12 tantek anyone at MIT know if sandro is still around? # 19:30 harry jasnell, looks good - found it and its in archive. Minor error in vocabulary but I can fix it before publishing jasnell joined the channel
# 19:33 jasnell harry: I'm back... just email if there are any further issues on the publication. my connectivity is pretty spotty today # 19:33 harry wait a sec, fixing one or two minor issues # 19:33 harry link checker is still complaining re broken links # 19:35 Zakim disconnecting the lone participant, KevinMarks, in T&S_SOCWG()1:00PM # 19:35 Zakim Attendees were eprodrom, jasnell, KevinMarks, aaronpk, Arnaud, Ann, wilkie, bblfish, bret, rhiaro, Sandro, Lloyd_Fassett, ShaneHudson, hhalpin, tantek, elf-pavlik, Harry # 19:38 jasnell harry: do a search'n'replace.... look for "def-displayname" replace with "dfn-displayname" # 19:42 harry so lets see if we can get it through linkchecker now # 19:43 harry so we should be able to send it through to webmaster now without pushback # 19:44 harry I'll ping if you if I there's any other really minor errors preventing publication # 19:44 harry BTW, I'm pushing to merge Working Draft and Editors Draft status internally, yet no luck there yet :) # 19:44 harry This process is a bit heavyweight for just pushing a draft out # 19:45 tantek you had me at "This process is a bit heavyweight" # 19:48 harry no broken links is good hygiene, but we usually get drafts at no broken fragids. # 19:48 harry Anyways, the next process revision should change this, you are in AB, so keep us in loop :) # 19:53 harry just check Overview.html into github for both # 19:56 harry anyways, everything should be fine now - will tell you if any last minute pushback from webmaster tomorrow # 20:02 tantek Harry do you have a list of the validators you're using? # 20:03 tantek I know there's a length pubrules reference somewhere # 20:03 harry yep, all specs have to get pass those three. # 20:03 tantek is there a URL you can provide that does all three? or three separate URLs? # 20:04 tantek I'm hoping I can document these on the wiki to make it easier for future editors in the WG # 20:19 tantek harry by "URI,pubrules" do you mean checkboxes or something else? jaywink joined the channel
# 20:24 jasnell harry: yeah, I'd like to make sure the &llt is not in my editor's draft bblfish joined the channel
# 20:27 tantek finally gets what harry means by URI,pubrules bblfish joined the channel
shepazu and shepazu_ joined the channel
# 20:41 tantek harry can you provide an *actual* example of what you mean by example.org,pubrules # 20:42 harry This is all linked in Guidebook and through Process docs # 20:44 tantek wait, does ",pubrules" only work on w3.org URLs? # 20:45 sandro yes, tantek, although it's just a shortcut for accessing the service that's available for any URLs # 21:24 Zakim excuses himself; his presence no longer seems to be needed # 22:18 ben_thatmust excellent, thanks sandro tantek, shepazu, the_frey and harry joined the channel
AnnB_ howdy
RRSAgent logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/01/27-social-irc
KevinMarks hm, did I dial in too early?
mattl wilkie: https://twitter.com/Barbijaputa
ShaneHudson I can't even hear ringing
tantek Tracker: http://www.w3.org/Social/track
elf-pavlik Zakim, ??P15 is me
jasnell running through the list of requirements... I've gone through and checked off the cases that are implemented by IBM's connections product (shipping currently)... https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Social_API/Requirements/Implementations
Zakim tantek, you wanted to point out the process we agreed on does not specify *HOW* to "Assemble functional requirements of a social API" https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Social_API
harry I believe they are already public - http://www.w3.org/2015/01/27-social-minutes.html