W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-socialweb@w3.org > May 2015

Re: Next steps of FPWD for Social API?

From: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 15 May 2015 15:29:11 -0400
Message-ID: <55564907.3020505@w3.org>
To: Aaron Parecki <aaron@parecki.com>, "Bassetti, Ann" <ann.bassetti@boeing.com>, "public-socialweb@w3.org" <public-socialweb@w3.org>
OK everyone,

While I understand Tantek's skepticism, I think a document that helps
clarifies. In my experience, raising issues and edits around a single
document is often a pretty good way to make progress.

I'll take a first stab at this next week in order to get a general
W3C-compliant outline and put it in the Github repo, and then I'll setup
Aaron and Jessica as editors (Amy - can you still help?). We can discuss
more on the Tuesday call, and also make sure the SoLiD approach is well


On 05/12/2015 03:44 AM, Aaron Parecki wrote:
> I'd be happy to contribute as Harry suggests!
> Aaron
> On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 9:38 AM Bassetti, Ann <ann.bassetti@boeing.com
> <mailto:ann.bassetti@boeing.com>> wrote:
>     I'd be pleased with Aaron and Jessica!
>     I'd also strongly like to suggest Amy as editor -- either by
>     herself, or with others. As we can see from her summary of the
>     meeting, she's an excellent compiler of concepts and a good writer.
>      -- Ann
>     Ann Bassetti
>     *From: *Harry Halpin
>     *Sent: *Tuesday, May 12, 2015 7:36 AM
>     *To: *public-socialweb@w3.org <mailto:public-socialweb@w3.org>
>     *Subject: *Next steps of FPWD for Social API?
>     Usually when faced with writing the first draft of a FPWD, it requires
>     having a rough draft of some pre-existing work. Now, given that we are
>     blessed with three pre-existing designs and that after the Paris
>     F2F the
>     various people are seeing the core similarities/differences, would now
>     be a good time to see if a joint draft between the three candidates
>     could be produced, with one or two neutral editors.
>     Would Tysekia, Aaron, and someone from SoLiD be up for it?
>     Any opinions? Volunteers?
>     Positive: It would force each of the similarities/differences to be
>     worked out one by one. For example:
>     Micropub - form-encoding and extensibility
>     SoLiD - Working with ActivityStreams
>     Negative: Might create a "Frankenstein" monster that no-one will
>     implement.
>     My advise to avoid the negative would be to use the user-stories to
>     guide us and 'pave the cowpaths' in existing specs where there are
>     similarities, keeping the spec minimalistic.
>     cheers,
>     harry
Received on Friday, 15 May 2015 19:29:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:26:17 UTC