Re: Getting the group back on track

On 10/06/2015 10:20 PM, Ben Werdmüller wrote:
>
> Please count Known in as an implementer. Happy to move forward quickly.

Of ActivityStreams 2.0 in particular?

  cheers,
         harry

>
> Ben
>
> On Tuesday, October 6, 2015, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org
> <mailto:hhalpin@w3.org>> wrote:
>
>     +1 to this email.
>
>     On 10/06/2015 07:06 PM, Christopher Allan Webber wrote:
>     > Hello all,
>     >
>     > So I initially wrote a different version of this email, but I
>     thought
>     > today's call was lively enough that it deserved a rewrite.  So here
>     > goes!
>     >
>     > I'm glad to hear that there's a general concern in the group that we
>     > really need to get moving for real on the client to server /
>     server to
>     > server APIs.  I was also happy to hear that in general people
>     seem eager
>     > to get ActivityStreams to move forward.  Great news!  Now, can
>     we do it?
>     > Can we fulfill the missions of this group?
>     >
>     > I think we can.  ActivityStreams 2.0 is already looking quite
>     polished.
>     > Today we got some good clarity on what an ActivityStreams test suite
>     > would look like, and I can help on this.  But the deliverables
>     of social
>     > api and federation api seem stuck in a rut.  At minimum, we need to
>     > agree on a format and move forward with it.
>
>     Right now, off top of my head implementers would be:
>
>     1) IBM Connections
>     2) Pump.io
>     3) MediaGoblin
>     4) Objective8 (Thoughtworks)
>
>     Anyone else?
>
>     Compared to many other W3C specs, if we can get them all *actually*
>     implemented and tested that would be great - and would be fine for CR.
>     While I admit AS2 implementer momentum is not as much as we want, it
>     does exist.
>     >
>     > Since it's already a deliverable, the mandatory format might as
>     well be
>     > ActivityStreams + JSON.  It's okay to say in the specification that
>     > other formats are optional, and here's how to handle them, but
>     > ActivityStreams should be mandatory.  As Evan said on the call
>     today, it
>     > would "look strange" to not have that be part of the official
>     APIs the
>     > group puts forward.  But appearing non-strange is just one
>     reason: the
>     > goal of this group should be putting forward a standard that the
>     real
>     > world will probably use.  The real world is currently setting up
>     > endpoints that shoot JSON back and forth at each other.  Well,
>     we've got a
>     > basis, and start defining how to shoot that across some endpoints.
>
>     S/JSON/JSON-LD but yes, most people will use it as JSON.
>
>     >
>     > By the way, it's my observation (and actually not at all just my
>     > observation, several people external to the group have raised
>     this to
>     > me, even while I was traveling to FSF 30th just this last
>     weekend) that
>     > one of the main causes of this group getting so "stuck in a rut"
>     is that
>     > this group is caught in the crossfire that has been going on for 15
>     > years: Microformats vs Linked Data.  I have massive respect for
>     people
>     > on both sides, and I'd love to see this group serve some purpose of
>     > seeing these sides come together, but more than anything I
>     believe the
>     > opposite has happened: again and again we get caught into age-old
>     > arguments between these camps.
>     >
>     > The Microformats vs Linked Data war has been going on for 15
>     years.  If
>     > it hasn't been solved outside of this group in all this time,
>     there's no
>     > way it can be reconciled inside this group.  Take it outside!
>
>     I would suggest the Social IG. I would actually put the Activity
>     Vocabulary and all vocabulary issues in the Social IG, as specified in
>     the original charter.
>
>     Some people seemed to dislike my noting what was on and out of
>     scope of
>     charter, but I might add we seem to have gone down a few ratholes and
>     not made as much progress as we wanted. Let's reverse that trend by
>     staying in charter and in scope!
>
>     >
>     > I have more to say on all the above subjects, but in the interest of
>     > keeping this email short, here's a summary: we already have a
>     nice and
>     > dandy serialization format that fits the toolchains of most of
>     the web
>     > frameworks out there.  We've spent a lot of time getting it to a
>     state
>     > that the group seems reasonably happy with.  We should take
>     advantage of
>     > that and move forward on recommending APIs that people can use.
>
>     +1. I hope we can get a LDP/micropub - and let's not forget
>     ActivityPump
>     convergence. Microformats can convert to JSON, and so can RDF. Thus, I
>     don't see a huge problem with going forward with AS2.
>
>     >
>     > So, how about it?
>     >  - Chris
>     >
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> *Ben Werdmuller*
> CEO & co-founder, Known
> withknown.com <http://withknown.com> | werd.io <http://werd.io>
> +1 (312) 488-9373
>
> Known, Inc | 421 Bryant St | San Francisco, CA 94107
>