Re: SocialWeb CG Feb 7, 2025 call -- CG Charter vote!

On Fri, 7 Feb 2025, 11:21 Melvin Carvalho, <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:

> pá 7. 2. 2025 v 11:34 odesílatel Aaron Gray <aaronngray@gmail.com> napsal:
>
>> Can I bring up the idea of possibly creating an AI working group. This is
>> triggered by Bob's recent post on ActivityPub and AI. This is to look at
>> the possible impacts of AI on ActivityPub and ActivityStreams ecosystems
>> and into mitigation of impact in terms of moderation and wider issues.
>>
>> I would not want to head this group due to other duties like studying AI
>> but given my exising knowledge and insights into the impact of AI I would
>> be a contributory member.
>>
>
> Hi Aaron
>

Hi Melvin,


> That's probably out of scope for this particular thread, perhaps change
> the title and start a new topic for "Agentic Social" or something like that
>

Yes sorry I was on a mobile, first things in the morning while doing home
decorating work.

In the Solid CG we have about 20 people exploring "Agentic Linked Data".
> Linked Data being the technology thar powers much of ActivityPub.
>
> https://hackmd.io/@jSWt69rrQAKeUTsa_s49Qg/H16RCGRv1g
>
I'm going to hopefully discuss this with Solid CG.
>

Okay thanks for making me aware of this, I would be interested to follow I
have always been an advocate for JSON-LD and OWL based technologies


> One other slight nit is that you mress says "AI Working Group".  At the
> W3C a Working Group has a special meaning and is the highest level of REC
> track work, which normally takes a few years to incubate.  What is easier
> to do is a "Community Group" aka CG (like this one!) which is the most
> casual and just requires 6 people to have an interest.
>

Yes sorry, my mistake.

Regards,

Aaron

Best
> Melvin
>
>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Aaron
>>
>> On Fri, 7 Feb 2025, 05:21 Melvin Carvalho, <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> čt 6. 2. 2025 v 19:25 odesílatel a <a@trwnh.com> napsal:
>>>
>>>> Hi Emelia,
>>>>
>>>> First, a brief note that JF2 is probably more in the IndieWeb camp as
>>>> it is basically a json serialization of the MF2 parsing algorithm’s output.
>>>> So a “third group” would likely cover only LDN, which seems kind of poor
>>>> organizationally. Maybe this could be merged into the ActivityPub group,
>>>> but…
>>>>
>>>> Second: why have this separation at all? It seems like an arbitrary way
>>>> to divide the former WG’s outputs, when it seems more straightforward to
>>>> just have them all under the banner of the same singular CG that inherited
>>>> them from the WG.
>>>>
>>>> Point 2.5: I would say that if any separate scopes are to be declared,
>>>> then it doesn’t make sense for the CG. Perhaps this discussion or line of
>>>> reasoning might make sense if/when trying to narrowly scope one or more
>>>> WGs, but I think that there should be at least some “neutral ground” for
>>>> everyone to share approaches and experiences related to making the Web more
>>>> social. A CG seems like a good place for various groups to come together as
>>>> a sort of hub for all ongoing efforts.
>>>> Say for the sake of illustrative example, that an entirely new approach
>>>> or protocol or ecosystem sprung up that was ostensibly within the purview
>>>> of a “social web”, and that members of such a community wanted to bring
>>>> their work to the W3C — let’s say they want IP immunity for their work. Do
>>>> we turn them away? Or, if there were 2 or 3 separate CGs, do we force them
>>>> to start yet another CG? How do all these hypothetical CGs collaborate with
>>>> each other? Liaison with each other? I don’t think the separation helps
>>>> here.
>>>>
>>>> -a
>>>>
>>>
>>> Great points! This CG isn't just a continuation of the Social Web
>>> Working Group (SWWG)—it also traces back to the W3C Federated Social Web
>>> Incubator Group (XG), which transitioned into a Community Group in 2012.
>>> The SWWG was actually a subset of that broader effort, not the other way
>>> around.
>>>
>>> At W3C, different technologies already have their traditional homes:
>>>
>>> - ActivityPub: http://www.w3.org/community/activitypub/
>>> - Federated Social Web: http://www.w3.org/groups/cg/fedsocweb
>>> - Solid (Social Linked Data): http://www.w3.org/community/solid/
>>>
>>> * indieweb afaik have never had their own CG, as they prefer to work on
>>> IRC
>>>
>>> For 20 years, the broader social web has worked within this group. It
>>> has always been the space for collaboration across different protocols and
>>> approaches, beyond any single ecosystem. That work needs to continue, which
>>> means either ensuring an inclusive charter that reflects this role or
>>> considering a split into different Community Groups.
>>>
>>