Re: Social Web F2F recap

> I don't believe there's been any conclusion or clear path set yet--in
> anyone's mind--in part because the Social WG's work is still
> formative.
...
> Short term action looks like our working to understand what they're
> building and understanding our own needs, so we can pick between those
> two extremes, or chart a third course...whatever that may be. :)

+1 to this and all Benjamin said, see below.

I think key is that we need to recognize that the social web goals may be differ as they seek adoption in certain communities and thus we may not have exact re-use by the Annotation WG, but interop is still possible.  We should not block on each other.

One additional major outcome to mention is that we've started to establish a good relationship with the social web WG, so that we can communicate  and work constructively together. This is valuable.

This work is going to require iteration and further sharing, but to start with we need to figure out as the Annotation WG what we want to do in the simplest manner, then sync up.

Benjamin - much thanks for the concise and excellent summary.
 
regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Co-Chair, W3C Web Annotation WG

www.fjhirsch.com
@fjhirsch

> On Apr 8, 2015, at 10:07 AM, Benjamin Young <bigbluehat@hypothes.is> wrote:
> 
> Good points, Ivan.
> 
> I don't believe there's been any conclusion or clear path set yet--in
> anyone's mind--in part because the Social WG's work is still
> formative.
> 
> What's likely best is for increased involvement and discussion with
> them (underway), and continued exploration of our own about what the
> minimal API for Annotation management and distribution / federation
> might look like, and keeping an eye on overlap or where their work
> might obviate our own.
> 
> Much of it depends on their current protocol discussions. Micropub in
> specific is promising in its simplicity, but likely lacks much when it
> comes to richer data set distribution or communicating richer
> semantics for specific domains.
> 
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
>> I think what we should try discuss and understand is what is exactly the way forward for the Anno WG. (Maybe that was discussed and is clear to others, but it is not for me.) To take the extremes:
>> 
>> - One extreme: we define our own API-s from scratch with some interop built in for Social Web and/or LDP
>> - Other extreme: we do not do anything, just put our data on top of the Social Web protocol work
> 
> Short term action looks like our working to understand what they're
> building and understanding our own needs, so we can pick between those
> two extremes, or chart a third course...whatever that may be. :)
> 
> Thanks, Ivan,
> Benjamin
> 
>> 
>> Or something in between...
>> 
>> Talk to you later today!
>> 
>> Ivan
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 08 Apr 2015, at 14:57 , Benjamin Young <bigbluehat@hypothes.is> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Randall, Frederick, and I had the privilege of representing the
>>> Annotation WG at the Social WG face-to-face (and a day or so of
>>> IndieWebCamp) a few weeks back in Cambridge, MA.
>>> 
>>> Here's a quick rundown of my take-aways along with some highlights
>>> based on the March 18th call where Frederick represented his set of
>>> take-aways--which match mine, fwiw. :)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Our objective at the F2F was to represent the Annotation WG within the
>>> Social WG's considerations for their API, data format, and
>>> notifications protocol discussions.
>>> 
>>> Core take aways:
>>> - The ActivityStreams 2.0 format is JSON-LD preferred, but not required
>>>  - this matches the Annotation WG's current plan
>>>  - they offer a set "magic strings" (key names) for those who want
>>> to ignore the @context
>>> - Their "activities" are extensible, with some for Note, Comment, Reply, etc.
>>>  - there are as yet no "shipping" implementors of AS2.0 (though
>>> there are some spec implementations).
>>>  - the extensibility mechanisms are defined, but (due to the lack of
>>> implementations) unexplored
>>>  - however, thanks to JSON-LD and the Social WG's eye toward making
>>> these extensible, we should be fine--but should also engage and
>>> explore further
>>> - There is an AS2.0 Test Suite to be developed:
>>> http://www.w3.org/Social/track/issues/8
>>>  - having that should make extensibility testing easier
>>>  - having something like this for our work, would also be helpful
>>> - Their API discussions are still formative
>>>  - 3 major contenders are on the table:
>>>    - Micropub (from IndieWeb)
>>>    - LDP (also being considered by the Annotation WG)
>>>    - pump.io API (which is currently based on AS1.0 work)
>>>  - they are currently exploring all 3 against their list of use
>>> cases and building a comparison matrix
>>> - Federation protocols were demoed on the second day
>>>  - Webmention and Micropub from some IndieWebCamp folks
>>>  - LDP from Andrei at the W3C
>>> - They plan to compare these federation notes alongside the API notes
>>>  - currently they're keeping the conversations separate and focusing
>>> on API first
>>>  - but with an eye toward how the API should be prepped for federation
>>> - Of the demos, LDP was the most complete
>>>  - however, the demos were currently tied pretty tightly to
>>> WebID+TLS (WebIDAuth)
>>>  - WebIDAuth while promising, has a *terrible* user
>>> experience...because browsers don't (currently?) care about personal
>>> certificate management UX...
>>> - LDP still seems like the strongest candidate for the Annotation WG
>>> - fixed URls and "follow your nose" APIs were also hotly discussed
>>>  - with "follow your nose" winning by a...nose. ;)
>>> - bringing more "follow your nose" discovery to our protocol docs
>>> would be a Good Thin
>>> g
>>> 
>>>> From the March 18th call, I highlighted the following:
>>> "<fjh> discussed with Tantek, we might consider interop among the
>>> different approaches, something to think about"
>>> 
>>> "shepazu: as long as there's a mapping between the simple social-web
>>> +1 and the web annotations +1 ... then we're OK"
>>> 
>>> "fjh: ... as long as we can interop we're OK"
>>> 
>>> Beyond the LDP, micropub, pump.io, or other protocol or data model
>>> concerns, I think interop between these groups will likely look like
>>> making sure we can transform data and actions between our various
>>> systems and have the core experience and data survive.
>>> 
>>> Hopefully that's helpful overview. I'd be happy to answer specific
>>> questions as needed.
>>> 
>>> Hypothesis has also joined the Social Web WG, so I'm working to track
>>> those activities more closely now as well.
>>> 
>>> Thanks for the time!
>>> Benjamin
>>> --
>>> Developer Advocate
>>> http://hypothes.is/
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----
>> Ivan Herman, W3C
>> Digital Publishing Activity Lead
>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
>> mobile: +31-641044153
>> ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 8 April 2015 14:44:59 UTC