- From: Coralie Mercier <coralie@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 1 May 2018 20:44:59 +0200
- To: public-new-work@w3.org
- Message-Id: <74411186-4F48-47A3-96CE-E93F38186AD2@w3.org>
> Begin forwarded message: > > From: Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org <mailto:wseltzer@w3.org>> > Subject: Fwd: Google response to JSON-LD WG charter proposal > Date: 1 May 2018 at 20:36:37 CEST > To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org <mailto:ivan@w3.org>>, Ralph Swick <swick@w3.org <mailto:swick@w3.org>> > Cc: Comm <w3t-comm@w3.org <mailto:w3t-comm@w3.org>>, Coralie Mercier <coralie@w3.org <mailto:coralie@w3.org>> > Message-Id: <75b6b993-ea0d-d84b-021f-99211db80137@w3.org <mailto:75b6b993-ea0d-d84b-021f-99211db80137@w3.org>> > > On 30 Apr 2018, at 19:45, T.V Raman <raman@google.com <mailto:raman@google.com> > <mailto:raman@google.com <mailto:raman@google.com>>> wrote: > > Thanks Dan! > > W3C Team, I submitted the review on Friday -- but parts of the > feedback didn't make it through -- (actually almost none of > it made it > through) Thanks again to Dan for catching this, and I hope > you can > take our input into account. > > Dan Brickley writes: >> Rob, Ivan, >> >> It seems that our AC rep (TV Raman, Cc:'d) had problems with >> the W3C site >> and that our JSON-LD review comments (and formal objection) were >> inadvertently lost on Friday, despite it seeming that they'd >> gone through >> successfully. It is unfortunate that we had a weekend >> deadline as we have >> only just confirmed the situation today, after the deadline. >> >> TV Raman can confirm that the details below represent >> Google's position on >> the matter; I hope you can take them into account during your >> deliberations, e.g. by updating the form on our behalf if >> possible. The >> fact that (prior to the deadline) I communicated all the >> points below when >> Rob and I met recently, might also be relevant. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Dan >> >> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >> >> For the review form at >> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/jsonld-charter-201803/ <https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/33280/jsonld-charter-201803/> is: >> >> *1. A Formal Objection, i.e. we suggest changes to this >> Charter, and only >> supports the proposal if changes are adopted.* >> >> *2. Form field for "Make my responses": "Public and send >> email to >> w3c-ac-forum and public-new-work".* >> >> 3. Comments for "4. Support for the Proposal" section of >> form are: >> >> "*We object specifically to the phrasing "1.1 will >> supersede the current", >> and more generally to the general tone which suggests that >> 1.0 (despite >> currently being used on millions of Web sites) will be >> replaced by a 1.1 or >> 2.0. Further* considerations about direction that are not >> directly >> editorial are given below. >> >> 4. For section 5., "Participation", it is likely that we >> will participate >> [checkbox yes] >> >> 5. For section 6., "Support for Deliverables of the group", >> "intends to >> review drafts as they are published and send comments." >> >> 6. Detailed comments for section 7., "Detailed Comments, >> Reasons, or >> Modifications". >> >> We are pleased to have a played a leading role in the >> success of JSON-LD >> 1.0, and are supportive of W3C's proposal to continue >> maintaining and >> improving its formats for structured data representation. >> >> Unfortunately, the fairly shallow way in which JSON-LD has >> seen success for >> in-page markup across the Web pulls in a different direction >> to that >> proposed in the WG charter. The draft charter in its current >> form is >> problematic in several ways. Some of these can be fixed >> through editorial >> and scoping changes, but there are also fundamental >> technology problems >> that echo difficulties from the XML era (GRDDL, XML Schema >> vs RDF Schema, >> etc.). >> >> The success of JSON-LD in the public Web dates from its >> adoption by >> Schema.org <http://schema.org/> <http://Schema.org <http://schema.org/>> and from implementations by >> search engines including Google. >> These implementations generally focus on a reliably fixed >> subset of >> possible JSON-LD, allowing consumption of certain expected >> data structures >> indicated by e.g. "@context": "https://schema.org <https://schema.org/>", without >> that context >> needing to be fetched/interpreted at runtime. No search >> engine (to our >> limited knowledge) fully implements the "context file" >> processing that >> fully general JSON-LD 1.0 implementations are expected to >> handle. We >> believe JSON-LD 1.0's processing API and Framing >> specifications are >> similarly under-implemented in a wide-scale Web search >> environment, raising >> questions about their moving to version 1.1 if the new >> standards work is >> justified using search-based deployment of the version 1.0 >> data format. >> >> Search engines at all scales are still engaging with their >> JSON-LD 1.0 >> implementations and the draft charter language (specifically >> that "1.1 will >> supersede the current") risks undermining implementation and >> deployment of >> the current approach. Browser implementations are almost >> non-existent, >> although we have some preliminary explorations around >> Chrome. Implementors >> working on 1.0 implementations are likely to be tempted to >> stop work the >> moment that W3C announces a 1.1 WG; this seems unfortunate, >> and unhealthy >> for the wider ecosystem. >> >> We urge a much stronger commitment to backwards >> compatibility, and an >> explicit phase of the WG's activity to engage with current >> and potential >> implementors beyond the core JSON-LD specification and tool >> development >> community. Some of this might be within a new WG, some >> within W3C's various >> relevant CGs. >> >> There are serious usability issues with JSON-LD 1.0 and >> W3C's commitment to >> improving the format is welcome. In our experience the >> biggest usability >> problem with JSON-LD stems from its combination of an >> RDF-based unordered >> graph data model with the JSON specs unreliability regarding >> repeated >> fields. While there may be potential for improving the use >> of JSON's array >> notation, any WG will need to balance the temptation to fix >> such things >> with the usability lessons from RDFa, where a number of >> clever notational >> tricks combined to create a standard whose rules were nearly >> impossible to >> remember. The best solution might turn out to be the >> existing design. >> >>> From personal communication with the charter authors we >>> understand that one >> usecase driving the proposal was a desire to allow syntactic >> schemas (e.g. >> JSON Schema) to work more effectively with JSON-LD data. >> This deserves >> exploration in the charter and WG, including an account of >> how it relates >> to mechanisms that operate over the RDF abstraction (e.g. >> Shex and SHACL). >> >> The charter should also give a more substantive treatment of >> JSON-LD's >> known privacy/security issues, namely that any consumption >> of general >> purpose JSON-LD data using RDF-oriented tooling typically >> requires fetching >> and interpreting so-called "context files", e.g. revealing >> (to remote >> service or by network traffic) the broad topic of the >> content. While this >> is less of a concern for the simple schema.org <http://schema.org/> >> <http://schema.org <http://schema.org/>>-oriented use of JSON-LD in >> the public Web, the charter is broader in scope and the >> issue deserves >> attention at this early planning stage. It is possible that >> an approach >> that documented the popular technique of consuming only >> known, fixed >> contexts/schemas that don't need runtime fetching might both >> address some >> privacy issues, as well as fit better with the Web Search >> usage of JSON-LD >> that resulted in its widespread use. -- Coralie Mercier - W3C Marketing & Communications - https://www.w3.org <https://www.w3.org/> mailto:coralie@w3.org <mailto:coralie@w3.org> +337 810 795 22 https://www.w3.org/People/CMercier/ <https://www.w3.org/People/CMercier/> -- Coralie Mercier - W3C Marketing & Communications - https://www.w3.org mailto:coralie@w3.org +337 810 795 22 https://www.w3.org/People/CMercier/
Received on Tuesday, 1 May 2018 18:45:03 UTC