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

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

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

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.

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.

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.
>>
>