RE: Fate of JSON-LD 1.0

Good thoughts, Leonard.

It will come down to use, though, not reference as until very recently there was only ever a “json-ld” reference and no version-based reference available.

We worked hard to make sure 1.0 docs could live well in a 1.1 world, so a community building on JSON-LD 1.0 exclusively would have to help us know what isn’t working for them—and as yet, there haven’t been (to my knowledge) any claims of any incompatibilities.

Additionally, all the major parsers have moved to 1.1 parsing by default, so (again) without anyone raising specific issues there aren’t any bugs to fix.

More in a bit on Ivan’s end of this thread.

From: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2020 1:59 PM
To: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@univ-lyon1.fr>; Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: W3C JSON-LD Working Group <public-json-ld-wg@w3.org>; W3C Chairs of JSON-LD WG <group-json-ld-wg-chairs@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Fate of JSON-LD 1.0

The reason to keep 1.0 alive should be based on what other standards are based specifically on it.  If it is a normative reference in other specs – then it needs to be kept alive so that the other spec can be implemented as specified.

Do we have any insight into where it is used and how it is referenced??

Leonard

From: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@univ-lyon1.fr<mailto:pierre-antoine.champin@univ-lyon1.fr>>
Date: Tuesday, August 25, 2020 at 12:26 PM
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org<mailto:ivan@w3.org>>
Cc: W3C JSON-LD Working Group <public-json-ld-wg@w3.org<mailto:public-json-ld-wg@w3.org>>, W3C Chairs of JSON-LD WG <group-json-ld-wg-chairs@w3.org<mailto:group-json-ld-wg-chairs@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: Fate of JSON-LD 1.0
Resent-From: <public-json-ld-wg@w3.org<mailto:public-json-ld-wg@w3.org>>
Resent-Date: Tuesday, August 25, 2020 at 12:26 PM



On Tue, 25 Aug 2020 at 17:49, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org<mailto:ivan@w3.org>> wrote:
Something that we all forgot to properly deal with: what should exactly be the status of JSON-LD 1.0? Should it be considered as formally superseded, and marked it as such in the /TR document?

If that is the case then, alas!, we will have to go through a formal procedure of asking for that change and get it accepted by the AC. Is there any reason why _not_ to do that?

I can't think of any. JSON-LD 1.1 is defined in such a way that 1.0 compliance can be explicitly required, so I don't see any need to keep 1.0 itself active.

  pa


Ivan

----
Ivan Herman, W3C
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FPeople%2FIvan%2F&data=02%7C01%7Clrosenth%40adobe.com%7Cd43ad4b9ab3a4c4f685e08d84913a5ad%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C1%7C637339696084272825&sdata=FVr0SJFplvgXqUcVvFsnAXSdtckWXNs27mNG4meVJu4%3D&reserved=0>
mobile: +33 6 52 46 00 43
ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Forcid.org%2F0000-0003-0782-2704&data=02%7C01%7Clrosenth%40adobe.com%7Cd43ad4b9ab3a4c4f685e08d84913a5ad%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C1%7C637339696084272825&sdata=ysYer1KMUlMKOzaiI81hLCZlBIC%2FgleS2kdFPnY0m4Y%3D&reserved=0>