JSON-LD Telecon Minutes for 2013-08-06

Thanks to Markus for scribing! The minutes from this week's telecon are
now available.

http://json-ld.org/minutes/2013-08-06/

A full transcript of the meeting can be found below, including a link to
the original audio:

-------------------------------------------------------------------
JSON-LD Community Group Telecon Minutes for 2013-08-06

Agenda:
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-linked-json/2013Aug/0014.html
Topics:
   1. Updates to Syntax Spec by David Booth
   2. GSoC update from Vikash
   3. Review JSON-LD github issues ready to be closed
   4. Review all LC2 and post-LC2 RDF WG issues
   5. Candidate Recommendation Preparation
Resolutions:
   1. Interpret objects that do not have a @context entry as the
      JSON-LD Context when passed into the API functions (via any
      context parameter). When passing in an array of objects and
      strings, the same rule applies. Remote context documents
      specified via a URL are still required to contain an @context key
      to be a valid JSON-LD Context.
   2. RDF WG issue 129, 130, 132, 133, 134, and 135 have been
      addressed by the group and are resolved. Manu will send out
      official responses.
   3. The JSON-LD test suite will be a living test suite (updated
      as needed). The version of the test suite when we transition into
      Candidate Recommendation will be assigned a git tag, so that
      others can test and report against a static version of the test
      suite.
Chair:
   Manu Sporny
Scribe:
   Markus Lanthaler
Present:
   Markus Lanthaler, Manu Sporny, Vikash Agrawal, Dave Longley,
   Gregg Kellogg, Niklas Lindström, Paul Kuykendall, David I. Lehn
Audio:
   http://json-ld.org/minutes/2013-08-06/audio.ogg

Markus Lanthaler is scribing.
Manu Sporny:  Today we'll re-review all issues and prep for
   Candidate Recommendation.

Topic: Updates to Syntax Spec by David Booth

https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/pull/287
https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/pull/288
Markus Lanthaler:  These are the changes above ^^ [scribe assist
   by Manu Sporny]
Markus Lanthaler:  Mostly editorial changes, and David Booth
   agreed to language offered by Dave Longley [scribe assist by Manu
   Sporny]
https://github.com/lanthaler/json-ld.org/commit/e392bb15ee7ad5315ca1816cf1f1fba48f759754
Manu Sporny:  Any objections to pulling both those change request
   in? [scribe assist by Manu Sporny]
Manu Sporny: No objections from the group, ok, let's do that.

Topic: GSoC update from Vikash

Vikash Agrawal: hi Everyone, I received a wake up call email from
   Manu today and I do realise losing of time and effort and not
   getting as much done as I need to. I apologise for not able to
   write my weekly update email but I was drafting one last night.
   But after I read the e-mail, I think it makes more sense, if I
   write it next week. Also regarding the creator tool, I am able
   convert the details from form to JSON but using valid Context,
   how should convert to JSON-LD. Is there a library for this?
Vikash Agrawal: Also regarding the context, I have been naive but
   I am progressing. Apologies.
Manu Sporny:  vikash, you don't convert from JSON to JSON-LD -
   you just add a context and the JSON /becomes/ JSON-LD. [scribe
   assist by Manu Sporny]
Markus Lanthaler:  vikash, what library exactly are you looking
   for?
Manu Sporny:  also, we're having trouble understanding what
   problem you're trying to solve. [scribe assist by Manu Sporny]
Markus Lanthaler:  viksash, let's discuss this on the mailing
   list
Markus Lanthaler:  it's pretty difficult to do so now on IRC
Manu Sporny:  vikash - let's take the discussion offline, it's
   going to be difficult to talk through this via IRC while on the
   telecon. [scribe assist by Manu Sporny]
Vikash Agrawal: http://bit.ly/13D6iIZ
Vikash Agrawal: ok

Topic: Review JSON-LD github issues ready to be closed

Manu Sporny:

https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues?milestone=2&page=1&sort=created&state=open
Manu Sporny:  markus, you said we support passing objects having
   a @context member in and did so from the very beginning. is that
   correct?
Markus Lanthaler:  yes
Manu Sporny:  and do implementations support that?
Markus Lanthaler:  yes I think all of them do.. not all
   implementations support passing in arrays (mine for example
   doesn't; dave's does)
Dave Longley:  right. my implementation looks for a @context key.
   if there's one, it is used, if not the object is used directly
Manu Sporny:  markus, are you saying we shouldn't support that?
Markus Lanthaler:  no.. we have to decide that. the danger is
   that a document is interpreted as a context without throwing an
   error
Gregg Kellogg:  if I pass in an object to my context processing
   algorithm I presume it is a context not a context document
Gregg Kellogg:  this implies that the normal flow is to pass
   objects having an @context member.. this is the exceptional case
   ... perhaps we should invoke a warning callback
   ... this is a case where I would like to see a warning
Dave Longley:  this doesn't seem unusual to me
Niklas Lindström:  the problem with allowing arrays of objects
   with @context is that it might process "invalid" documents as
   contexts
   ... I can't see a use case to support that
Manu Sporny:  people may have a list of context URLs and the
   dereference them and replace them with the content of those
   documents
Gregg Kellogg:  we can't test that without creating specific API
   tests

PROPOSAL: Interpret objects that do not have a @context entry as
   the JSON-LD Context when passed into the API functions (via any
   context parameter). When passing in an array of objects and
   strings, the same rule applies. Remote context documents
   specified via a URL are still required to contain an @context key
   to be a valid JSON-LD Context.

Manu Sporny: +1
Dave Longley: +1
Niklas Lindström: +1
Gregg Kellogg: +1
Paul Kuykendall: +1
David I. Lehn: +1
Markus Lanthaler:  +0.1 (don't see much value in specifying this
   and it adds further variability)

RESOLUTION: Interpret objects that do not have a @context entry
   as the JSON-LD Context when passed into the API functions (via
   any context parameter). When passing in an array of objects and
   strings, the same rule applies. Remote context documents
   specified via a URL are still required to contain an @context key
   to be a valid JSON-LD Context.

Manu Sporny: https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/254
Manu Sporny:  I think we're done w/ this. [scribe assist by Manu
   Sporny]
Manu Sporny: https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/274
Markus Lanthaler:  ok, I'll close 254. the official response will
   be handled using the issue in the RDF WG tracker
Manu Sporny:  I've updated an example in response to Robin's
   feedback
   ... I hope it clarifies it
Dave Longley:  I've read the whole discussion and agree
Manu Sporny:  the last major (editorial) change to make is to
   briefly describe JSON-LD's data model at the beginning of the
   spec
   ... this is https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/263
   ... I'll sit down and re-arrange pieces and the spec (not
   removing changes Peter-Patel S. and David B. made) to make the
   spec easier to read
   ... I'll introduce the concepts at the high level at the
   beginning of the spec
   ... I don't think there's much to discuss
   ... I'll make the changes and we can discuss them afterwards
   ... if there are no objections I'll go ahead and make those
   changes
   ... that's the only issue remaining for the syntax spec.
   Markus, all issues for the API spec have been addressed, right?
Markus Lanthaler:  yes, only the @context-change we'll need some
   minor tweaks in the API spec

Topic: Review all LC2 and post-LC2 RDF WG issues

Manu Sporny: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/products/15
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013May/0260.html
Markus Lanthaler:  sandro already outlined the steps we should
   take:
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2013May/0260.html
Manu Sporny:  I don't necessarily agree but OK
   ... but it won't prevent us from going to CR and that's the
   main point at the moment
   ... ISSUE-132: both Peter and David said they are happy with
   the changes we made
   ... ISSUE-133: reverse properties are a feature at risk
   ... ISSUE-134: blank node graph names are now supported in
   RDF; we discuss blank node properties in the spec
   ... ISSUE-135: we addressed all the feedback. We still need to
   send the official response

PROPOSAL: RDF WG issue 129, 130, 132, 133, 134, and 135 have been
   addressed by the group and are resolved. Manu will send out
   official responses.

Paul Kuykendall: +1
Manu Sporny: +1
Dave Longley: +1
Markus Lanthaler: +1
Niklas Lindström: +1
David I. Lehn: +1

RESOLUTION: RDF WG issue 129, 130, 132, 133, 134, and 135 have
   been addressed by the group and are resolved. Manu will send out
   official responses.

Topic: Candidate Recommendation Preparation

Manu Sporny:  I think we are ready to go to CR
   ... we have no other comments to address
   ... the only thing we'll have to do is to prepare the docs
   ... I'll take care of the syntax spec. Markus can you prepare
   the syntax spec
Markus Lanthaler:  sure.. what date do we tag the documents with?
Manu Sporny:  August 20
Markus Lanthaler:  there's no RDF WG telecon next week
   ... the next meeting is August 21
Manu Sporny:  ok.. let's try to publish on August 22 then
Paul Kuykendall:  can we send an implementation report for a
   propertary implementation?
Manu Sporny:  sure
Paul Kuykendall:  do we see any other major or minor changes?
Manu Sporny:  no, we would need to go through another last call
   then. we do not expect many changes
Markus Lanthaler:  pkuyken, here are links that might help you:
   http://json-ld.org/test-suite/ and
   http://json-ld.org/test-suite/reports/
Gregg Kellogg:  during CR we may also want to issue a call for
   implementations
Manu Sporny:  should we discuss this now or during CR?
Gregg Kellogg:  I suggest we keep the test suite where it
   currently is and update it even post publication
Manu Sporny:  we can freeze the test suite at any point in time
   by using the commit hash
Gregg Kellogg:  so which URLs should we use in the implementation
   reports? A URL including the git hash?
Manu Sporny:  yes.. I think that would make sense
   ... I think we did the right thing with the RDFa test suite
   which is updated as soon as an issue is found

PROPOSAL: The JSON-LD test suite will be a living test suite
   (updated as needed). The version of the test suite when we
   transition into Candidate Recommendation will be assigned a git
   tag, so that others can test against a static version of the test
   suite (if required).

Paul Kuykendall: +1
Dave Longley: +1
Gregg Kellogg: +1
Niklas Lindström: +1
Manu Sporny: +1
Markus Lanthaler: +1
David I. Lehn: +1

RESOLUTION: The JSON-LD test suite will be a living test suite
   (updated as needed). The version of the test suite when we
   transition into Candidate Recommendation will be assigned a git
   tag, so that others can test and report against a static version
   of the test suite.

Markus Lanthaler:  do we need to add the exit criteria to the
   specs?
Manu Sporny:  yes.. I can take care of that or you just look at
   other specs in CR.. basically we just need to say that we require
   two implementations pass every test and an implementation report
Markus Lanthaler:  ok.. how long will we stay in CR?
Manu Sporny:  I think we agreed on 4 weeks
Gregg Kellogg: http://json-ld.org/test-suite/reports/
Dave Longley:

https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/blob/master/test-suite/reports/jsonld.js-earl.jsonld

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Meritora - Web payments commercial launch
http://blog.meritora.com/launch/

Received on Tuesday, 6 August 2013 16:21:14 UTC