W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-linked-json@w3.org > May 2013

Re: Proposal: JSON-LD CR and LC2 timeline

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 08:40:04 +0200
Message-Id: <EC2A2917-793A-425C-9C12-C986A57D87BE@w3.org>
Cc: JSON-LD CG <public-linked-json@w3.org>, RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
I am for simplicity and, also, to make it clear to outsiders that these two documents belong together. That means that I would personally favor (with my activity lead's hat put down, I must add) to go to a 2nd LC with the API (I do not see a reason for syntax to go through 2nd LC), and then progress the two together to CR or PR (whatever we decide). Syntax waiting a few more weeks for API to catch up is not a problem imho.

Thanks

Ivan

---
Ivan Herman
Tel:+31 641044153
http://www.ivan-herman.net

(Written on mobile, sorry for brevity and misspellings...)



On 7 May 2013, at 03:57, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> The first Last Call for JSON-LD will end this week. JSON-LD Syntax seems
> ready to go to Candidate REC. JSON-LD API will need a second Last Call
> due to a change in the API, which moved from node.js continuation-style
> callbacks to DOM future-style return values.
> 
> The editors will have both specs updated and ready to go by the end of
> this coming weekend, but the question remains "ready to go to what?".
> 
> Here's a proposal for moving the specs forward in a safe way that
> optimizes our ability to move to PR quickly:
> 
> 1. Publish JSON-LD 1.0 (Syntax) as a Candidate REC on May 14th 2013
>   with a 3 week CR period.
> 2. Publish JSON-LD 1.0 (API) as a 2nd Last Call on May 14th 2013 with
>   a 3 week LC2 period.
> 3. Both specs should emerge from these stages on June 4th 2013 at
>   which point, if nothing goes wrong, we should move both of them to
>   PR as soon as possible.
> 
> But wait!, you may exclaim. Why doesn't the JSON-LD API need to go
> through CR? In short, I think we meet the CR requirements already. We
> already have implementation reports for 4 interoperable JSON-LD
> Processor implementations with a 5th on the way:
> 
> http://json-ld.org/test-suite/reports/
> 
> We don't have two inter-operable implementations for the JSON-LD
> browser-based API yet, but expect implementing one to take the better
> part of a day or two. I expect that we'll have all of these things done
> by June 4th.
> 
> The reason that we are going through a 2nd Last Call is to ensure that
> we're adhering to W3C Process wrt. the JSON-LD API. We did make a
> substantive change, but all implementers that have submitted
> implementation reports have already made the changes that will be in the
> 2nd LC document.
> 
> If all of this sounds too complicated, the other alternative is to just
> go into a 2nd LC for both documents and then skip CR and go directly to
> PR since we have the implementation reports more or less done at this
> point in time.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> -- 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, 7 May 2013 06:40:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:18:37 UTC