Re: Feature At Risk

I just read over the rdf:language stuff and that’s definitely *not* how we are handling RDF->JSON-LD in the case of the new JSON-LD serialization of XMP (XML+RDF).   What we did was using `@language` as we believe that is the correct model.  Here is an example from the ISO 16684-3 DIS

Serialized XMP Packet in RDF/XML with xml:lang qualifier
```
<rdf:RDF
    xmlns:rdf=http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#

    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
    xmlns:xmp="http://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/">
    <rdf:Description rdf:about="">
        <dc:source xml:lang="en-us">
            Adobe XMP Specification, April 2010
        </dc:source>
        <xmp:BaseURL rdf:resource="http://www.adobe.com/" xml:lang="en"/>
        <dc:subject xml:lang="en">
            <rdf:Bag>
                    <rdf:li>XMP</rdf:li>
                    <rdf:li>metadata</rdf:li>
                    <rdf:li>ISO standard</rdf:li>
                    <rdf:li xml:lang="fr">Norme internationale de l’ISO</rdf:li>
            </rdf:Bag>
        </dc:subject>
    </rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>
```

Serialized XMP Packet in JSON-LD with “@language” JSON-LD keyword
```
{
    "@context": {
        "dc": "http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/",
        "xmp": "http://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/"
    },
    "@id": "",
    "dc:source": {
        "@value": "Adobe XMP Specification, April 2010",
        "@language": "en-us"
    },
    "dc:subject": {
        "@set": [
            "XMP","metadata","ISO standard",
           {
                "@value": "Norme internationale de l’ISO",
                "@language": "fr"
            }
        ],
        "@context": {
            "@language": "en-us"
        }
    },
    "xmp:BaseURL": {
        "@id": "http://www.adobe.com/"
    }
}
```


Leonard

From: Benjamin Young <byoung@bigbluehat.com>
Date: Wednesday, June 3, 2020 at 3:41 PM
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>, Benjamin Young <byoung2@wiley.com>
Cc: W3C JSON-LD Working Group <public-json-ld-wg@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Feature At Risk
Resent-From: <public-json-ld-wg@w3.org>
Resent-Date: Wednesday, June 3, 2020 at 3:40 PM

It sounds like we just missed un-marking these as "at risk" before we went to CR...due to the lack of feedback from RDF folks...

The implementation reports seem to show several implementations of these "at risk" features--so I'd hardly consider them at risk (from a JSON-LD implementation perspective) any longer:
https://w3c.github.io/json-ld-api/reports/#Transform-JSON-LD-to-RDF<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fw3c.github.io%2Fjson-ld-api%2Freports%2F%23Transform-JSON-LD-to-RDF&data=02%7C01%7Clrosenth%40adobe.com%7Cbc6266c55b2947453dcf08d807f61192%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637268100742390974&sdata=q5bmf%2Fs2fvjDWFkUR%2BdOVdgtarvEBTM%2Bq4Dh0G%2FJASo%3D&reserved=0>

Here's the sections with the "at risk" claim:
https://w3c.github.io/json-ld-syntax/#the-i18n-namespace<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fw3c.github.io%2Fjson-ld-syntax%2F%23the-i18n-namespace&data=02%7C01%7Clrosenth%40adobe.com%7Cbc6266c55b2947453dcf08d807f61192%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637268100742400969&sdata=06ot5B1AWvyXjmboFDa0%2F2hpTUCMBrhrHMjXUb0RO1k%3D&reserved=0>
https://w3c.github.io/json-ld-syntax/#the-rdf-compoundliteral-class-and-the-rdf-language-and-rdf-direction-properties<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fw3c.github.io%2Fjson-ld-syntax%2F%23the-rdf-compoundliteral-class-and-the-rdf-language-and-rdf-direction-properties&data=02%7C01%7Clrosenth%40adobe.com%7Cbc6266c55b2947453dcf08d807f61192%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637268100742400969&sdata=81LJjPLjW2F3FeQnM6q1vv%2BgQK3%2F0AeBoD9FSEeVtPo%3D&reserved=0>

We can certainly put this to a vote in hopes of stiring up some feedback. Email should be sufficient unless we get lots of feedback.

Anyone else have thoughts on this at risk feature before we take it to a vote?

Cheers,
Benjamin
Co-Chair, W3C JSON-LD WG/CG


--

http://bigbluehat.com/<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fbigbluehat.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Clrosenth%40adobe.com%7Cbc6266c55b2947453dcf08d807f61192%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637268100742410965&sdata=ftsx2pIzKz4SEkw6ZJzJdlS8RbhNs2fHxskVD4eRT7E%3D&reserved=0>

http://linkedin.com/in/benjaminyoung<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flinkedin.com%2Fin%2Fbenjaminyoung&data=02%7C01%7Clrosenth%40adobe.com%7Cbc6266c55b2947453dcf08d807f61192%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637268100742420961&sdata=VEWlfFHu2hcipAA7uEJVZxkJlHCoWeos4a9rsdNZH8M%3D&reserved=0>

________________________________
From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2020 2:47 PM
To: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>; Benjamin Young <byoung2@wiley.com>
Cc: W3C JSON-LD Working Group <public-json-ld-wg@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Feature At Risk

Ouch.

As far as I can see:

- looking at the implementation report I see that the features have been implemented by two independent implementations;
- we haven't received any pro or con reactions on these features by the RDF community.

I believe, also in view of the importance of these features, that this means these features, although originally at risk, should be considered as final in the documents. Ie, we have an editorial issue to handle when publishing the final Rec.

I would propose to have a vote (mail should be fine) to decide on this, and I will go back to the Director to get that solved...

Benjamin, wdyt?

Ivan


——
Ivan Herman

(Written on my iPad. Excuses for brevity and misspellings...)

> On 3 Jun 2020, at 19:21, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net> wrote:
>
> We have some remaining Feature At Risk issues in Syntax and API; perhaps they should have been removed before PR publication, but I wanted to bring this up. Does something need to be done before REC, or is it too late? What does it mean to have a Feature At Risk in a Recommendation?
>
> Syntax:
>
> * i18n Namespace - experimental feature
> * rdf:CompoundLiteral - experimental feature
>
> API:
>
> * Deserialize JSON-LD to RDF Algorithm: rdfDirection on i18n-datatype and compound-literal options
> * Serialize RDF as JSON-LD Algorithm: rdfDirection on i18n-datatype and compound-literal options
>
> Gregg Kellogg
> gregg@greggkellogg.net
>
>