Socialwg/2015-05-26-minutes

Attendees

Present: Ann, jasnell, +1.314.705.aaaa, Arnaud, Marilyn, aaronpk, elf-pavlik, +1.401.305.aabb, ben_thatmustbeme, Sandro, rhiaro, AdamB, tantek, +1.773.614.aacc, cwebber2, +1.408.335.aadd, +1.514.554.aaee, eprodrom, KevinMarks, wilkie, tsyesika, +33.6.43.93.aaff
Regrets Chair: tantek
Scribe: aaronpk

jasnell: they can put it wherever they want, they can put it in the context URL of their implementation
... using a different context URL is already possible withotu changing our default one
... the fact that our default one only deals with AS2.0 vocab we aren't making any backward compatible changes to the vocab past CR, so we don't need version number there
... everything elf wants to do can already be done without making a change to the context URI

<bblfish> that also makes sense

<elf-pavlik> can we open this issue and discuss it further?

jasnell: the context document can live wherever

<hhalpin_> In particular apps they can change the @context

<hhalpin_> For application-specific apps

sandro: if you change the bytes in the context you use, then the consumers won't do the right thing

jasnell: the spec says you can create your own context as long as you don't redefine any of thecore terms

<bblfish> I suppose if we want people to read the JSON as JSON-LD then the context thing may be important for people who don't know the LD part?

jasnell: i can create one context document that imports another
... as long as they don't redefine one of the core terms it's all good

sandro: it sounds like if we want to add more terms to the core, then they will have broken the rules for extension without knowing they did

jasnell: if those changes are backwards compatible then what's the problem

<bblfish> IS this a problem to do with non JSON-LD parsers?

hhalpin_: until we have a good case for changing thet erms in the context dynamically, then we have a w3c process for changin....
... so the question is do we want to be able to change the terms in the base after we pass CR
... i don't see a good use case for this, since the context is already extensible
... if there is a good case for this then we can visit this after CR and make a note

sandro: i don't think we want to freeze things, since it will take at least 2 years to make any changes by that proess

<hhalpin_> I think we could discuss this indefinitely :)

tantek: it sounds like there is sufficient debate on this
... i'm going to propose opening this and assigning to sandro

bblfish: i think it would be a good idea to have a debate on the mailing list about this

<elf-pavlik> ACTION: pelf document why some of JSON-LD authors use v1 etc. in context URIs [recorded in [[1]|http://www.w3.org/2015/05/26-social-minutes.html#action01]]]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-65 - Document why some of json-ld authors use v1 etc. in context uris [on Pavlik elf - due 2015-06-02].

<jasnell> -1 to opening, it's entirely unnecessary to keep open at this point

<hhalpin_> Maybe an ACTION on Sandro and elf to actually figure out a driving use-case and then edits to the spec?

<elf-pavlik> hhalpin_, i just took action

<hhalpin_> It's a generic problem bblfish

<bblfish> ok. need to learn more about json-ld

<hhalpin_> regardless of whether one is using RDF or JSON

tantek: it's hard to not open the issue if people think there is something to debate

<hhalpin_> They can open it, but they need to have a concrete proposal.

<Arnaud> anyone is free to propose closing any dormant issue

<tantek> issue-39

<trackbot> issue-39 -- Do we need the overall system to be robust even when nodes fail? -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Social/track/issues/39

<hhalpin_> that is very vague

<elf-pavlik> +1 sandro

<cwebber2> ,q

<Arnaud> and the chairs propably could probably do a bit of dusting off and come up with a list of such issues

<cwebber2> +q

<jasnell> propose extending the call 30 minutes

<elf-pavlik> +1 jasnell

<eprodrom> jasnell: +1

<cwebber2> last meeting we resolved to do activities at the end, right?

<cwebber2> er

<cwebber2> issues

<bblfish> agree close it

<hhalpin_> Happy to extend for 30 minutes but yes, we've opened a bunch of issues that need closing

tantek: i suggest we close issue 39 because there's no information about who it's from

<hhalpin_> In general, we should be much more parsimonious with issues

bblfish: usually issues are opened in other groups after debating on the mailing list
... it seems like here issues are brought up before they are even debated

<tantek> close issue-39

<trackbot> Closed issue-39.

<tantek> issue-40

<trackbot> issue-40 -- Deprecate the "Post" activity -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Social/track/issues/40

jasnell: the post activity was part of AS1.0

<hhalpin_> My suggestion would be, once we get an API document FPWD, we stop using tracker as much as possible and just move it all to github

jasnell: as the default activity
... we have "create" "add" as separate more semantically specific activities

<rhiaro> +1 Create over Post

jasnell: there's obvious confusion with "post" used in other contexts

<elf-pavlik> +1 deprecate Post

jasnell: can be deprecated, doesn't cause much harm and simplifies

tantek: that makes sense, will open this

<tantek> issue-41

<trackbot> issue-41 -- PubSubHubbub license clarification requires contacting current editor Julien -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Social/track/issues/41

tantek: this one came up because we were mistaken about who was editing pubsubhubbub right now
... there are some of us who would liek toconsider PuSH in what we're working on
... harry this probably involves you

hhalpin_: there's a normative dependency between the new version by julien and the old version
... and because there's no licensing attached to the earlier one

<cwebber2> -q

hhalpin_: the answer is we can reference julien's version informatively no problem
... but we cannot push it in as a working draft until we clarify bradfitz commits

<elf-pavlik> +1 open

tantek: are you okay with reopening this?

<cwebber2> +q

tantek: i'd like to request you contact julien directly to try to resolve this

hhalpin_: i've already done this once, bradfitz already said no

tantek: because julien is editing this now

<cwebber2> > eprodrom: In previous telecons we've gone over raised issues, but that's been controversial. What I'd like to do is do that at the end of the agenda if we have time

hhalpin_: it doesn't matter if julien is editing, becasue it refers to a previous document that we don't have any licensing on

<cwebber2> from https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-05-12-minutes

<cwebber2> was that for this meeting or for future meetings?

<cwebber2> er

<cwebber2> that meeting

<eprodrom> I think the closest we have is http://web.archive.org/web/20120101132018/http://www.openwebfoundation.org/announcements/introducingtheopenwebfoundationagreement

<hhalpin_> This has been extensively discussed with W3C before launching the WG.

tantek: the point is julien is the editor and the chair of the WG, so he is the one we shuld be dealingwith

<jasnell> -1 to opening this issue at this time until it's clear new information is available

sandro: would you like me to take this?

<elf-pavlik> https://www.w3.org/community/pubsub/

action sandro to follow up with Julien regarding Pubsubhubbub licensing

<trackbot> Created ACTION-66 - Follow up with julien regarding pubsubhubbub licensing [on Sandro Hawke - due 2015-06-02].

<cwebber2> -q

<KevinMarks> +1 to sorting this out with julien

tantek: the new information is that we should have contacted julien in the first place, not brad
... rather than making assumptions about the spec we should have contacted the author

<tantek> action-66

<trackbot> action-66 -- Sandro Hawke to Follow up with julien regarding pubsubhubbub licensing -- due 2015-06-02 -- OPEN

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Social/track/actions/66

tantek: let's close the issue with the related action

<tantek> issue-42

issue-42

<trackbot> issue-42 -- Dual licensing activitystreams specs with a free format -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Social/track/issues/42

<trackbot> issue-42 -- Dual licensing activitystreams specs with a free format -- raised

<trackbot> http://www.w3.org/Social/track/issues/42

<cwebber2> +q

hhalpin_: dual licensing has been discussion, it's beyond this WG to do anything, the answer right now is no, but the answer in the future is likely to be yes
... there's nothing this group can do, it's a w3c issue

<cwebber2> Arnaud: is there a link to this?

<cwebber2> new license?

Arnaud: there's a new license doc that will allow re-use
... in that AC meeting it was reported, so that should solve itself

<hhalpin_> Yes, but lots of groups will do that so it's not a big deal

tantek: i asked wendy about that at the AC meeting, our charter mentions a specific license, so we'd need to do a charter modification
... i too would like to look at the new license but we can cross that bridge when it gets to the WG

<elf-pavlik> +1 extend call

tantek: there was a request to extend the call

<jasnell> +1 to extend

<cwebber2> I would be fine with extending

<eprodrom> +1 to extend

<bblfish> +1

<ben_thatmustbeme> +1

<wilkie> +1

<cwebber2> +0, it depends on how rhiaro and tsyesika and aaronpk feel

-0 i have to go at 11

<cwebber2> okay it's extended :)

<hhalpin_> Aaron is also probably needed to help do API discussion

<cwebber2> welllllllllllll, doesn't this involve aaron as part of this conversation?

<AnnB> I also have to go, but am fine with extending

Arnaud: if you drop off the call after 11 you probably won't be able to join back, but we can continue

tantek: let's go ahead and extend

<cwebber2> tantek: wait

<tsyesika> aaron would need to be yep cwebber2 and hhalpin_

<ben_thatmustbeme> Arnaud: that hasn't been a problem for me in the past

<ben_thatmustbeme> we did this before and I was able to get back on

<wilkie> I can scribe

<elf-pavlik> wilkie++

<tantek> thanks wilkie

<Loqi> wilkie has 12 karma

cwebber2: is aaron required for the items we have?

hhalpin_: there's the api discussion and the microformat/rdf discussion

<wilkie> yep

<wilkie> let's do it

<tantek> scribenick: wilkie

<rhiaro> https://github.com/w3c-social/Social-APIs-Brainstorming/blob/master/README.md

Social API

tantek: that brings us to social API

<hhalpin_> aaron and rhiaro, could you intro this?

tantek: who wants to go first
... let's ack cwebber2

cwebber2: my +q was from earlier. I suggest either aaron or amy go first.

aaronpk: I'm going to assume people haven't read this yet

tantek: assume they have read it

<rhiaro> I also made some changes to it within the last hour, sorry :p

<tantek> (people were supposed to have read it from last week)

aaronpk: my goal with this was to collect examples of what micropub would look like in json
... to look at the parts of it that were awkward or caused 'discomfort' with people

<KevinMarks> read what? URL? Amy's post?

<aaronpk> http://rhiaro.co.uk/2015/05/micropubbing-with

<cwebber2> rhiaro++

<Loqi> rhiaro has 98 karma

<cwebber2> aaronpk++

<Loqi> aaronpk has 818 karma

aaronpk: amy did a much thorough comparison she just published. i've only had a brief chance to look over it.

<cwebber2> for doing these

<tsyesika> rhiaro++

<Loqi> rhiaro has 99 karma

<cwebber2> also rhiaro's post is really awesome

<tsyesika> aaronpk++

<Loqi> aaronpk has 819 karma

aaronpk: rhiaro? anything you could add to this?

<cwebber2> does rhiaro have voice?

<cwebber2> -q

rhiaro: just experimental. i don't really know what I could add other than it just feels like when i put micropub stuff into AS it was just objects in AS and that felt simpler
... would love to hear anybody else's feedback

<Zakim> elf-pavlik, you wanted to discuss next steps on that?

tantek: elf?

<elf-pavlik> https://github.com/w3c-social/Social-APIs-Brainstorming/issues

elf-pavlik: thank you rhiaro and aaronpk for working on that. I already created a few issues.
... my question would be: "what are the next steps on this topic?"

tantek: response?

rhiaro: I think the next steps are for people to start publishing stuff

<elf-pavlik> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/Deployments

tantek: sounds reasonable
... henry go ahead

<cwebber2> bblfish: there's interest in LDP being tied in

bblfish: I don't see how you can get LDP tied into that

<cwebber2> bblfish: could you help?

rhiaro: I haven't thought about LDP yet. haven't had time.

bblfish: is it part of your plan? are you thinking of it?

<elf-pavlik> Pull Requests :)

rhiaro: yes. I'd like to hear your opinion on this. haven't had much feedback from those involved with LDP.

<tantek> pullrequests++

<Loqi> pullrequests has 2 karma

<elf-pavlik> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Self-identified_issues_with_API_candidates

aaronpk: there's a section on the github on this that can be expanded for comparison

eprodrom: I guess I'm finding the conversation pretty interesting. I think there is definitely an intense cluster around object CRUD lifecycle (create, read, update, delete) a particular object (note etc)

<cwebber2> all verbs are nouns now ;)

<tantek> cwebber2++

<Loqi> cwebber2 has 33 karma

<rhiaro> eprodrom: I agree, like activity vs like post are the same

eprodrom: the difference between like-type activity and like-type post as being very small and insignificant
... we should not ignore the rest of the scope of our user stories and over focus on CRUD type interactions

<cwebber2> eprodrom: (pre-meeting-end, request that before you disappear that we sync up on implementation stuff)

<cwebber2> eprodrom: I did put up the flask thing, and I'm working on some scheme stuff on my own time too :)

aaronpk: CRUD is a good place to start, I feel, but we need to move ahead of it quickly

<eprodrom> cwebber2: thanks, I appreciate it

<eprodrom> Sorry I haven't dug into too much

rhiaro: I agree. add/remove from collections are going to be useful, but I feel most things can be reduced to Post

hhalpin_: I was wondering (I sent an email) if we could eventually get an editor's first draft out.
... two ways of doing this: drive two/three into convergence, or just pick one. I'd prefer the former rather than latter.

<eprodrom> +1

<rhiaro> yeah, I agree with aaronpk re: vocab

<rhiaro> that's what I was going to say

<tsyesika> i also agree for what it's worth

<elf-pavlik> eprodrom, we have another point on agenda for today about that :)

<rhiaro> usecases++

<Loqi> usecases has 1 karma

eprodrom: I hate to be the stickler, but I think that for developers outside of the call, if we publish something that doesn't say this is how we post a note, etc, but rather this is how you do a thing without tying to use-cases, I would be worried it wouldn't be actionable outside of us.
... we need some decisions around vocabulary in there

<hhalpin_> Agreed, we'll need to tie it all the use-cases and specify examples with vocabularies *before* FPWD publication

<eprodrom> +1 for incremental progress

<hhalpin_> However, starting the editors' draft ASAP may help us reach that point

<tsyesika> i think maybe we can converge on the other things and if it comes down to it we can pick a vocab

<cwebber2> eprodrom: I agree, and I think aaronpk is right re: incremental progress

aaronpk: I totally agree, just need to look at places for incremental progress

<Zakim> tantek, you wanted to discuss vocab for editor's draft

<eprodrom> Let's just makes sure we don't publish the "Social API that sends a thing to a place to do some stuff"

tantek: I agree if people saw an abstract draft that it would not look good

<hhalpin_> If the big vocabulary difference is microformats vs. AS 2.0 Vocabulary, we can move to that discussion next - as I think elf was interested in RDF versions of microformats.

<eprodrom> progress++

<elf-pavlik> we can jump into this dicussion right now :)

<Loqi> progress has 4 karma

<eprodrom> Bravo to rhiaro tsyesika and aaronpk

<tsyesika> hhalpin_: it's not the only difference but it's certainly a sticking point

<cwebber2> indeed!

tantek: i think that it is good to give aaronpk and rhiaro and LDP people more time to discuss and converge on more concepts.

<rhiaro> we could go forward with some decisions about vocab with some 'at risk' until a decision is made

<hhalpin_> The question is there any sticking points in terms of syntax (HTTP CRUD and end-points?)

<hhalpin_> I didn't see any per se

tantek: would rather see that convergence

<hhalpin_> minus the form encoding

<rhiaro> hhalpin_: I added a bit about endpoints to the brainstorming page not long ago, for AP and MP they're basically the same

<rhiaro> Would love someone to drop LDP into that table

<hhalpin_> That's what I thought was well, so we're probably fine in terms minus the form-encoding of micropub

<tantek> hhalpin_, that's ironic, because form-encoding is part of what makes micropub "micro"

<KevinMarks> did zakim hang me up?

bblfish: I wonder if the vocabulary could be put different. I think the issue is what side-effects exist for publishing some kind of thing. if you post a picture, what are you liable to deal with to do that.

<rhiaro> hhalpin_: also yeah we should do better at documenting our (me aaron jessica) discussions about form-encoding and json, we've thought a bit about this

bblfish: that's the one thing I feel isn't addressed here, but perhaps I just looked too quickly

<hhalpin_> I would be happy to see form encoding, as I think developers want it, although REST folks might be unhappy

tantek: hhalpin_ seems to be discussing things in irc. anything for the record?

<tsyesika> ugh i dropped off

hhalpin_: minus the form encoding bit there isn't much difference between micropub/pump as far as syntax

<aaronpk> bye for now!

tantek: questions before moving to next topic?

<tsyesika> me

<tsyesika> i dropped off

Does as:Follow result in as:Subscribe?

<tantek> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-05-26#Does_as:Follow_result_in_as:Subscribe.3F

<elf-pavlik> https://github.com/w3c-social/social-vocab/tree/master/activity/Subscribe

elf-pavlik: we had this conversation on the mailing list
... this is about the distinction between following somebody and following their channels
... there is little clarity that if I follow somebody, what am I subscribing to?
... I don't know if anybody has had a chance to look at it. I posted it quite late.

<jasnell> following objects and subscribing to objects are exactly the same thing really

<jasnell> you can follow a person, you can follow a feed, you can follow any kind of resource

<eprodrom> jasnell: I agree with what you say

tantek: do people need to review the diagram?

elf-pavlik: I think it would be helpful

<rhiaro> jasnell: I think the question is if you follow a person and they have several feeds, how do you decide the default?

<tantek> action all review https://github.com/w3c-social/social-vocab/tree/master/activity/Subscribe

<trackbot> Error finding 'all'. You can review and register nicknames at <http://www.w3.org/Social/track/users>.

tantek: let's action that people review the diagram
... elf-pavlik, if you could copy this agenda item forward to next week and we'll assume people have reviewed it by then

Social Syntax

<tantek> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-05-26#Aligning_AS2.0_and_Microformats

tantek: that takes us to the next topic: social syntax, and subtopic: aligning as2 and microformats

<rhiaro> "works on" is a bit strong :p

<tantek> also related https://www.w3.org/wiki/Activity_Streams/Microformats_Mapping

elf-pavlik: I collected existing efforts and I posted awhile ago the invitation for people could subscribe to each other using these different formats

tantek: we looked at this before and made a table of equivalences on the wiki
... we saw that microformats was a proper subset of AS concepts
... the challenge is when microformats has a clear Atom-style stream that doesn't have the same type of activity abstraction
... the challenges will be similar to those found in interoperating existing formats such as Atom/RSS

<elf-pavlik> Invitation (challenge) addressed at two of Social WG chairs - Tantek & Evan proposing Proving usability of ActivityStreams2.0 and Microformats together by example

eprodrom: not interested in participating in this challenge. I find it condescending and rude. not interested in completing arbitrary challenges. please do not bring it up again. thank you.

tantek: who is 'you'?

<elf-pavlik> https://github.com/w3c-social/social-web/issues/1

<KevinMarks> what was the challenge?

eprodrom: 'elf-pavlik' There is a github issue. I think I responded. But I do not want this to come up again.

<eprodrom> I'm mostly frustrated that it's personalized

tantek: I will point out for the record that previously eprodrom and I have gotten interoperability. there has been no problem in doing so. I'm also not immediately interested in this type of challenge.

<Zakim> elf-pavlik, you wanted to discuss URIs for microformat terms?

elf-pavlik: apologies to eprodrom. I thought it would be a pragmatic way to address issues of interop. I will close the github issue and not bring it up again.
... my question is that if we had clear prefix URIs we could use them in both. anyone who wants to use them can just use them.

<elf-pavlik> http://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-core/#compact-iris

hhalpin_: I think that's a reasonable way forward. there seems to be a lot of overlap. we have to make a choice. a good way is to choose one and make a union and where there is an overlap use microformats terms instead of making new ones.

<bblfish> name space idea seems good

hhalpin_: I don't think it really needs an implementation challenge, we should just make a decision on how we will handle these two vocabularies

<cwebber2> hhalpin_: I'm all for implementation union etc

<hhalpin_> Another way to go forward would just be to merge all stable microformats into AS2.0, and then if there's overlap go with microformats term as that already has wide deployment.

tantek: is that a good enough incremental progress for us to move on?

<cwebber2> hhalpin_: btw pump does already have deployment, so

<hhalpin_> Yes, but AS2.0 is still I think a bit more unstable

<cwebber2> that's true

bblfish: this namespace idea, does this seem reasonable?

<elf-pavlik> h:first-name for example

<hhalpin_> It might be useful to do a straw poll?

<elf-pavlik> h:card , h:event etc.

<bblfish> cool

Intended use of as:Profile

tantek: I don't think we are at the point of taking a straw poll

<tantek> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-05-26#Intended_use_of_as:Profile

tantek: next topic is also proposed by elf-pavlik

<elf-pavlik> https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/112

elf-pavlik: from the F2F we discussed the as:profile idea
... I proposed how it could be used to jasnell that I have my identity on my own domain but I have other profiles elsewhere
... I don't know how this is supposed to be used nor is it clear

eprodrom: I think the idea with as:Profile is that it would be an object (not an actor) that you would be able to do things like update or delete.

<elf-pavlik> as:Actor rdfs:subClassOf as:Object . (AFAIK)

eprodrom: the idea was that instead of having a person object update that same person object to represent profile update, we would have person update profile objecct
... yes, elf-pavlik, those are similar
... we also had tangled in there the concept that you might have a user account with multiple profiles
... or rather a person with multiple profiles so I can have a work profile, friends profile, or maybe a political profile
... we have a few things tangled up in this profile concept

<tantek> https://github.com/jasnell/w3c-socialwg-activitystreams/issues/112

<elf-pavlik> ok for me to continue on gh

<hhalpin_> +1 profile objects, -1 'real identity'

tantek: that brings us to last item about IJSON

I-JSON

<tantek> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-05-26#I-JSON_discussion

<tantek> "I-JSON (short for "Internet JSON") is a restricted profile of JSON designed to maximize interoperability and increase confidence that software can process it successfully with predictable results."

<tantek> from http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7493

<hhalpin_> http://rfc7159.net/rfc7159

hhalpin_: there are overlap between JSON-LD and I-JSON so we can say in our spec that we will use JSON-LD

<eprodrom> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7159

<eprodrom> Ah, beat me to it!

jasnell: the fact that AS relies on JSON-LD means we have to make sure JSON-LD implementations can read the I-JSON subset

<elf-pavlik> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-socialweb/2015May/0066.html

jasnell: it is possible that JSON-LD implementations to not ~output~ I-JSON compatible documents

<hhalpin_> We'd have to do some double-checking in the test-suite that we were I-JSON compliant - it's a small issue, but Erik Wilde supported it as a best practice and I tend to do agree.

jasnell: AS implementations should try to make I-JSON compatible documents. if consensus suggests we should make an explicit note about it, I'm happy to do that.

<elf-pavlik> maybe action?

<elf-pavlik> +1 issue

tantek: the question is what if anything AS2 should say about I-JSON

<hhalpin_> Sounds like its a reminder to check implementations for the edge-cases that I-JSON fixes and add a I-JSON check to the AS 2.0 validator.

<tantek> issue: what if anything should AS2 say about I-JSON? per https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg/2015-05-26#I-JSON_discussion

<trackbot> Created ISSUE-43 - What if anything should as2 say about i-json? per https://www.w3.org/wiki/socialwg/2015-05-26#i-json_discussion. Please complete additional details at <http://www.w3.org/Social/track/issues/43/edit>.

<bblfish> fine for me, but got no idea about ijson

<eprodrom> ha ha!

<eprodrom> Snuck out of it.

tantek: with that we are at the end of the agenda and the end of our call extension time

<elf-pavlik> thanks everyone!

<cwebber2> thx all!

<bblfish> wave

tantek: thanks everybody. next call is next tuesday, June 2nd

<hhalpin_> trackbot, end meeting

<elf-pavlik> wilkie++

<Loqi> wilkie has 13 karma

<cwebber2> guess eprodrom and I won't be syncing up ;p

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: pelf document why some of JSON-LD authors use v1 etc. in context URIs [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2015/05/26-social-minutes.html#action01]

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.140 (CVS log)
$Date: 2015/05/26 18:33:05 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.140  of Date: 2014-11-06 18:16:30  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/Arnaud/tantek/
Succeeded: s/51/52/
Succeeded: s/jasnell/aaronpk/
Found Scribe: aaronpk
Inferring ScribeNick: aaronpk
Found ScribeNick: aaronpk
Found ScribeNick: wilkie
ScribeNicks: aaronpk, wilkie
Default Present: Ann, jasnell, +1.314.705.aaaa, Arnaud, Marilyn, aaronpk, elf-pavlik, +1.401.305.aabb, ben_thatmustbeme, Sandro, rhiaro, AdamB, tantek, +1.773.614.aacc, cwebber2, +1.408.335.aadd, +1.514.554.aaee, eprodrom, KevinMarks, wilkie, tsyesika, +33.6.43.93.aaff
Present: Ann jasnell +1.314.705.aaaa Arnaud Marilyn aaronpk elf-pavlik +1.401.305.aabb ben_thatmustbeme Sandro rhiaro AdamB tantek +1.773.614.aacc cwebber2 +1.408.335.aadd +1.514.554.aaee eprodrom KevinMarks wilkie tsyesika +33.6.43.93.aaff
Found Date: 26 May 2015
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2015/05/26-social-minutes.html
People with action items: pelf

[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]

Socialwg/2015-05-26-minutes

Attendees

Contents

actions pending review

issues pending review

raised issues

Social API

Does as:Follow result in as:Subscribe?

Social Syntax

Intended use of as:Profile

I-JSON

Summary of Action Items

Scribe.perl diagnostic output