Re: W3C Social IG agenda now available; inviting WG objectors

On 07/08/2015 10:26 AM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
> On 8 July 2015 at 01:27, Bassetti, Ann <ann.bassetti@boeing.com> wrote:
> 
>>  Hi All –
>>
>>
>>
>> Apologies for sending this so late... I have created an agenda for
>> tomorrow's meeting:  https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialig/2015-07-08
>>
>>
>>
>> Since there is not much else on the agenda, I propose to use the meeting
>> to work on the use cases with minor objections, starting with those that
>> have been added to GitHub:
>> https://github.com/w3c-social/social-ucr/issues
>>
>>
>>
>> I am also sending this note to the WG. Since we cannot actually resolve
>> the objections without the original objectors (who are mostly in the WG,
>> but not in the IG).  If any of these people who had objections could
>> attend, it would be valuable.  I realize this is very late notice, so no
>> worries if you can't make it.
>>
> 
> Thanks, I joined.
> 
> 
>>
>>
>> ·         *User posts a note with embedded media: *Ben Roberts, James
>> Snell, Bill Looby, Aaron Parecki, elf, Tantek, Chris Webber
>>
>> ·         *User posts a file: *Andreas Kuckartz, Kevin Marks,
>>
>> ·         *Groups:*  Aaron Parecki, Kevin Marks, Bret Comnes, Tantek
>>
>> ·         *Reshare Ridesharing Demand:* <many objections, stating this
>> user story is a duplicate of "2.12 Responses"
>>
>> ·         *Profile Management*:  Tantek
>>
> 
> Re profile managment there's
> 
> 13 +1s
> 
> Only negative comment (+0) was from tantek (who I think does not want to
> use the mailing list)
> 
> Can I note that we demoed a live implementation of this at the F2F using
> SoLiD.  Furthermore, the platform was expressive enough that we could add
> 'hometown' without any new code introduced to the system.
> 
> The object from tantek is along the lines of "twitter doesnt have home
> town, so we should not".  I dont think this is an ideal philosophy.  Social
> web silos are empowered by the developers.  A real social web should
> empower users.  The essence of this use case is very important, in that
> users are able to express the aspects of themselves that THEY choose, not
> that the developers choose.

Hello,

I have impression that objection to editing personal profile might also
relate to the use of micropub as currently deployed and assigning same
URI for identity (home page) and feed with status updates (aka. notes).

To my understanding IndieWeb home page includes both h-card and h-feed
(often h-feed 'nested' in h-card, which parsed to JSON uses *children*
property - BTW itself not a part of microformats vocabulary...). App
used for editing it, needs to know which properties (predicates) have
h-card as subject and which h-feed as subject. I don't really know if
everyone nests h-feed in h-card or some people have them both as 'top
level'.
http://microformats.org/wiki/triples

Looking at latest micropub spec, which seems to use PATCH like updates,
I think editing personal profile could work in rather straight forward way.
* http://indiewebcamp.com/micropub#Update

Instead of speculating myself any further, I would really like to see
some constructive conversation in relevant gh-issue
* https://github.com/w3c-social/social-ucr/issues/1

I also notice Tantek's last comment on Apr 7th mentions discussion from
Mar 31st, while Aaron added more details about update mechanism to the
spec just few days earlier on Mar 26h. Before that, Update seems to only
explain *Adding a Syndication URL* and *Adding Tags* (Updating_Objects
section)
*
http://indiewebcamp.com/wiki/index.php?title=Micropub&action=historysubmit&diff=18266&oldid=18265

Since I remember Tantek's surprise during F2F3 about recently introduced
mp-* properties, I think it could make sense to always check directly
with Aaron about latest capabilities of micropub API...
*http://socialwg.indiewebcamp.com/irc/social/2015-05-04/line/1430747129791

Cheers!

Received on Wednesday, 8 July 2015 10:19:05 UTC