Re: Feature At Risk

> On 3 Jun 2020, at 21:40, Benjamin Young <byoung@bigbluehat.com> wrote:
> 
> 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://w3c.github.io/json-ld-api/reports/#Transform-JSON-LD-to-RDF>
> 
> Here's the sections with the "at risk" claim:
> https://w3c.github.io/json-ld-syntax/#the-i18n-namespace <https://w3c.github.io/json-ld-syntax/#the-i18n-namespace>
> https://w3c.github.io/json-ld-syntax/#the-rdf-compoundliteral-class-and-the-rdf-language-and-rdf-direction-properties <https://w3c.github.io/json-ld-syntax/#the-rdf-compoundliteral-class-and-the-rdf-language-and-rdf-direction-properties>
> 
> 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.
> 

Note, b.t.w., that §10.3 and §10.4 in the syntax document, where these are specified, are marked as non-normative. In other words, and from hindsight, marking them as 'at risk' may not have been the best way to do it (but we know it was all a very special situation).

Ivan


> 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/ <http://bigbluehat.com/>
> http://linkedin.com/in/benjaminyoung <http://linkedin.com/in/benjaminyoung>
> From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org <mailto:ivan@w3.org>>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2020 2:47 PM
> To: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net <mailto:gregg@greggkellogg.net>>; Benjamin Young <byoung2@wiley.com <mailto:byoung2@wiley.com>>
> Cc: W3C JSON-LD Working Group <public-json-ld-wg@w3.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:gregg@greggkellogg.net>
> > 
> > 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C 
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +33 6 52 46 00 43
ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704