RE: JSON-LD Telecon Minutes for 2014-01-07

Well, it actually did start on IRC, moving to the conference bridge to make it easier to discuss the items.

-----Original Message-----
From: Gregg Kellogg [mailto:gregg@greggkellogg.net]
Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 12:11 PM
To: Markus Lanthaler
Cc: Linked JSON
Subject: Re: JSON-LD Telecon Minutes for 2014-01-07

Sorry, I guess I dropped the ball on organizing a meeting for today. Sounds like you all had a useful discussion, though. I'd say that, in the future, we continue discssion on the mailing list/IRC and when we agree we need to get into it more, we'll arrange a telecon.

Gregg Kellogg
gregg@greggkellogg.net

On Jan 7, 2014, at 8:27 AM, Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net> wrote:

> Despite not sending out a formal agenda we had a brief telecon today.
> The minutes are now available.
>
> http://json-ld.org/minutes/2014-01-07/
>
> A full transcript of the meeting can be found below.
> The audio will be added soon.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> JSON-LD Community Group Telecon Minutes for 2014-01-07
>
> Agenda:
>   n/a (ad-hoc telecon)
> Topics:
>   1. Tooling for JSON-LD
>   2. Context at schema.org
>   3. Processing of relative IRIs without base
>   4. Subtree split to create a repository containing just the
>      JSON-LD tests
> Chair:
>   Markus Lanthaler
> Scribe:
>   Markus Lanthaler
> Present:
>   Niklas Lindström, Markus Lanthaler, Paul Kuykendall, Dave Longley
> Audio:
>   http://json-ld.org/minutes/2014-01-07/audio.ogg
>
> Niklas Lindström: .. Is there a telecon today? We planned for the
>   7th last time, but there's been no mail about it.
> Markus Lanthaler: I don't know myself.. I just joined but was the
>   only one
> Paul Kuykendall: I was wondering about that myself Markus Lanthaler:
> Do we have something to talk about?
> Paul Kuykendall: We discussed last time the "next steps" with
>   respect to tooling, etc.
> Paul Kuykendall: Do we have any other items that we should go
>   over?
> Niklas Lindström: I guess we ended by saying something like "of
>   course, unless we have a bunch of topics/issues, we could wait
>   until we've gathered some and then issue a call"..
> Markus Lanthaler: There was some discussion regarding the context
>   at schema.org but other than that I don't think anything else
>   happened
> Markus Lanthaler:  I agree, I think that's about it right now.
>   [scribe assist by Niklas Lindström]
> Markus Lanthaler: So I guess we postpone the telecon!?
> Paul Kuykendall: Has anyone/group come up with a wish-list of
>   tools, etc. that would be beneficial?
> Niklas Lindström: I've no problems with taking that on the list
>   and see if we can coalesce the questions around that (publishing
>   contexts, caching and other tooling) Markus Lanthaler: pkuyken.. do
> you want to briefly discuss this
>   on the call? I'm happy to have a brief call but also fine with
>   moving it to the mailing list
> Paul Kuykendall: dialing in
> Markus Lanthaler: niklkasl, will you join us as well for a couple
>   of minutes?
> Niklas Lindström: sure, dialing in
> Markus Lanthaler: ping m4nu, taaz, dlongley_ Dave Longley:  we are
> having a brief call if you want to join
>   [scribe assist by Markus Lanthaler]
> Dave Longley: i can join for a bit
> Markus Lanthaler is scribing.
>
> Topic: Tooling for JSON-LD
>
> Paul Kuykendall: 2) Schema.org discussion on list Paul Kuykendall:
> during the last telecon we discussed what
>   tooling we wanted to have
>   ... I'm wondering where we are at
>   ... do we want to put something up on json-ld.org or on the
>   wiki on GitHub?
> Niklas Lindström: is having sound issues, so I may miss some
>   speech from time to time
> Markus Lanthaler:  me too
> Dave Longley:  I think it would be good to have a primer
>   ... David Lehn was working on it some time ago but it's not
>   done yet
>   ... people have issues understanding some things (like
>   overloading of @type)
>   ... not sure if a primer would help
>   ... regarding tools: I think creating a wiki page and linking
>   it from json-ld.org would be a good start Niklas Lindström: +1 for a
> wish list (and list of common
>   questions)
>   ... also updates for the playground would be nice Paul Kuykendall:
> a simple copy button on the playground would be
>   awesome
>   ... where shall we track these things?
> Dave Longley:  regarding the playground I think you should just
>   file an issue
> Paul Kuykendall:  the only concern I have with the wiki (w3c
>   wiki) is that people have the feeling to have to dig into specs
>   ... instead of just having to use tools etc.
> Dave Longley:  I think we could just use Github issues for this
>   as well
> Niklas Lindström:  one difficult question is always if JSON-LD is
>   usable as just JSON
>   ... schema.org might be an example for that.. can people use
>   different terms (if they are properly mapped in the context)?
> Dave Longley:  I think we should focus on the JSON side of things
> Niklas Lindström:  yeah.. we should mention what kind of
>   constraints that imposes in the primer Dave Longley:  do people
> agree with paul that we should avoid the
>   wiki
> Niklas Lindström:  yeah, wikis are lousy for discussion Markus
> Lanthaler:  I agree. I would prefer to just use Gihub
>   issues with a specific tag so that we can directly link to that
>   list
> Dave Longley: http://json-ld.org/primer/latest/ (etherpad could be
> better but issue is good and available) Markus Lanthaler:  I think we
> shouldn't format it using ReSpec
>   but make it look more like a blog post Dave Longley:  yeah
>
> Topic: Context at schema.org
>
> Paul Kuykendall:  do we want to discuss the context at schema.org
>   now?
> Markus Lanthaler:  I don't think we can discuss much here because
>   (unfortunately) we are not in control there Niklas Lindström:  one
> of the interesting questions to me is that
>   at this stage the intent of the examples being published is to
>   create data being published by Google
>   ... I think this intended for publishers to publish data for
>   Google and the other schema.org search engines.. not other people
>   ... Google obviously will have their own caches Markus Lanthaler:
> most problems could be addressed by using
>   @vocab
> Dave Longley:  that wouldn't address the problem that Martin Hepp
>   is throwing in (tools accessing various schema.org URLs for
>   properties etc.)
> Niklas Lindström:  that might be a problem because tools might do
>   optimizations like prefetching etc.
>   ... there are no such tools available for JSON-LD (yet) Markus
> Lanthaler:  that's a general Linked Data "problem"
>   ... tools like Tabulator etc. will have to dereference
>   properties etc. to get their labels
> Dave Longley:  in a lot of cases that's the whole point of all
>   this
>   ... anyway. I think there's progress been made on the mailing
>   list
>
> Topic: Processing of relative IRIs without base
>
> Dave Longley:  markus, I think we never decided what happens when
>   base is set to null
> Markus Lanthaler:  https://github.com/lanthaler/JsonLD/issues/47
> Markus Lanthaler:  at least my understanding from reading the
>   RFCs is that the algorithms can only be run if there's a base
>   ... if @base is set to null then there's none Dave Longley:  is
> there not even something like path
>   normalization we might could run
> Markus Lanthaler:  I don't think so.. the algorithms are not
>   defined
>   ... http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-5
>   ... The term "relative" implies that a "base URI" exists
>   against which the relative reference is applied. Aside from
>   fragment-only references (Section 4.4), relative references are
>   only usable when a base URI is known.
>   ... A base URI must be established by the parser prior to
>   parsing URI references that might be relative.
> Dave Longley:  I'm fine with not touching relativ IRIs if there's
>   no base
> Markus Lanthaler:  it's a bit weird but should we add a test for
>   this?
> Dave Longley:  hmm.. no I don't think so Markus Lanthaler:  it's weird
> but we don't need to use an empty
>   string
> Dave Longley:  yeah.. maybe that makes sense Markus Lanthaler:  that
> brings me to something else...
>
> Topic: Subtree split to create a repository containing just the
> JSON-LD tests
>
> Markus Lanthaler:   could we create a subtree split including
>   just the tests?
> Paul Kuykendall:  I think that would be a great idea Markus Lanthaler:
> do you have access to set up a post-commit
>   webhook on GitHub? I don't
> Dave Longley:  I have access
>   ... I'll try to give you access as well
>
>
>
> --
> Markus Lanthaler
> @markuslanthaler
>
>


--------------------------------------------------- Confidentiality Notice: This electronic mail transmission is confidential, may be privileged and should be read or retained only by the intended recipient. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete it from your system.

Received on Tuesday, 7 January 2014 20:56:26 UTC