ben_thatmustbemei think all these questions actually bring to point the fact that inbox and outbox are technical details and should not be mentioned at all in user stories
ShaneHudsonThanks tantek :) I've finally got a nice work/life balance sorted out and graduating on Monday so things are starting to be quite managable again finally haha
wilkieArnaud: Last week we decided to publish the specification as a regular working draft. it would be good to know where we are. it would be nice to know when the draft WD will happen?
wilkieArnaud: this would solve this problem. once we have the tool, it will just be a click of a button and the editor will have the control/credentials. worth the investment.
wilkieArnaud: I would like us to proceed with this. on github and not on the WG tracker. jasnell: you have the lead on how to discuss this. there's no set order.
wilkiejasnell: we'll start with 134. "require specific vocab" because of the way json-ld works if things aren't in the context they get silently dropped
wilkiejasnell: doing this any types undeclared are preserved but their meaning is document specific. if two documents have a 'foo' and they are not defined, they both have distinct 'foo' types that aren't comparable.
wilkiejasnell: so: do we want a common prefix for unknown things? the benefits would be it would give more assumed interoperability for documents with undeclared extensions. however, could lead to a false sense that two similarly named extensions are the same.
wilkieelf-pavlik: I wanted to clarify that my issue does not propose a common prefix. if somebody uses properties outside of the context that person would have to define their namespace.
wilkiesandro: common namespace can still conflict. blank nodes aren't a great idea either because they have some issues and strange behavior with RDF systems.
wilkiesandro: I think silently ignoring them is a nice clear behavior. and people can understand "oh yeah, I'm not supposed to do that. they need to map to a url"
wilkieArnaud: I see elf-pavlik say that things shouldn't be mapped to a common namespace. I believe your proposal suggests people must define a namespace, but what if they don't? we still need to handle cases where people don't do it.
wilkiejasnell: the use of blank nodes here (the point that people ignore them is totally valid) just ensure that undeclared pieces make it through the json-ld expansion and letting the application decide what to do with these nodes later.
wilkieelf-pavlik: in the case of blank nodes, I think people understand that blank nodes from two documents are not comparable, but how will people understand that two documents have the same extension property with json-ld?
wilkiejasnell: you really need to declare a json-ld context. if multiple implementations are using the same term without declaring it, the spec already says they will have interop issues.
wilkiesandro: jasnell, you seem to have a use-case for this? in some cases they do want to look at this stuff and know what to do, and in that case we are telling them to use blank nodes, maybe? I don't understand the use-case.
wilkiejasnell: it comes down to allowing applications to do what they want to do but providing the guidance. if an application is closed-network then they can do whatever. if they care, the spec provides the guidance to do it well. it's about being prescriptive about what SHOULD be done, not normative about what must be done.
wilkiejasnell: I don't think we need to keep hammering on. I don't think we need changes to the spec, but rather the json-ld context. whether we keep vocab to the blank node or we remove that specific item. the difference is when somebody uses json-ld expansion on a document with an undeclared term without the default vocab, those undeclared terms are dropped and the application WILL NOT SEE THEM. the application
tantekis going to put bnodes / blanknodes in the same category of httprange14 - unless you've got a pragmatic use-case that's driving the discussion, it's a waste of time to discuss it.
wilkiejasnell: I'll say to elf-pavlik, one of the things we can do is strengthen the language in the spec about why it is important these extensions are declared in the context.
wilkiejasnell: this is about looking at common services and creating examples (fictional, as they don't already use Activity Streams) for how to accomplish their use cases with activity streams
wilkieeprodrom: would it be useful to use example.org etc for these instead of specific services and anonymizing the services such as "uploading a photo" etc
tantekand if any existing examples don't make sense in this kind of context (or in the context of existing approved user stories), then we should drop those examples
wilkietantek: ben_thatmustbeme has been doing a lot of work on improving examples in the spec. maybe file this as a separate issue for the spec and cc ben_thatmustbeme. I'm not volunteering him, but just saying you might find a volunteer here.
wilkiejasnell: even though it has a type json-ld uses its own type "application/ld+json" and this issue suggests we add a requirement for servers to provide this type in addition to 'application/activity+json'
wilkietantek: two types when you are publishing something makes it worse for consuming applications that have to suddenly support both and mitigating any issues in differences
rhiarodisconnected because chrome likes to reload tabs when not in focus, and now webex robot lady is intterrupting herself to thank me for using webex over and over
rhiaroI sent several messages to different email addresses and twitter for the guy about opens ocial posts, no reply. Spoke to harry a couple of weeks ago, he sort of handwaved about it a bit, wasn't sure who else we could contact
wilkieArnaud: if there is any action you are assigned to where you have an issue that blocks you, this is the time to speak up and we can try to solve it
elf-pavliki see updates great but 'new message on Social WG mailing list' notification for each tiny edit feels bit much at leas for may way of reading mailing lists
elf-pavlikaaronpk, i agree not a big deat to delete them, i just find it discuraging me to check that inbox as soon as i see new message in it and have some time for it
melvsterjasnell: unsure I will (be able to) reuse this work without a standard mime type ... is there any possible to have a version of AS with the json ld mime? if so, how?
ShaneHudson, bblfish and tilgovi joined the channel
ben_thatmustbeme again, no such thing. in order to send a message there need only be a post somewhere. does not need to be in a feed
Loqi Benthatmustbeme made 1 edit to [[Socialwg/2015-07-07]] https://www.w3.org/wiki/index.php?diff=84961&oldid=84955
ShaneHudson Hey everyone. Sorry I've been so inactive recently, been extremely busy but should be able to be active again now :)
elf-pavlik hello o/ did someone already managed to connec o webex meeing?
RRSAgent logging to http://www.w3.org/2015/07/07-social-irc
eprodrom present+ eprodrom
Arnaud PROPOSED: Approve minutes of 30 June https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-06-30-minutes
wilkie jasnell: it comes down to allowing applications to do what they want to do but providing the guidance. if an application is closed-network then they can do whatever. if they care, the spec provides the guidance to do it well. it's about being prescriptive about what SHOULD be done, not normative about what must be done.
jasnell we can likely close http://www.w3.org/Social/track/actions/52
melvster PROPOSED: Close https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/86 with a no