Re: Reactivating the CG to work on updated versions of the specs

Thanks for pushing forwards with this Gregg!  Much appreciated and look
forwards to contributing.

Rob


On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 8:00 PM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote:

> Excellent!  Thanks for initiating this!
>
> David Booth
>
>
> On 09/29/2016 06:31 PM, Gregg Kellogg wrote:
>
>> JSON-LD 1.0 and JSON-LD API 1.0 have been out and successful for many
>> years now. JSON-LD has succeeded beyond the wildest dreams of the CG,
>> thanks to broad adoption.
>>
>> In the time since it’s introduction, a number of feature requests,
>> and a couple of bugs have been found, which are collected on the
>> GitHub issue tracker [1]; at this point, there are 34 open issues
>> relating to work that might be released on a 1.1 release; many of
>> these include detailed proposals to update the syntax and processing
>> algorithms.
>>
>> Additionally, the Framing algorithm [2] has proven to be important,
>> but work on the specification was never complete, and implementations
>> have moved beyond what was documented in any case.
>>
>> I think it’s time to get back to these documents to create a future
>> 1.1 Community Group release of the specifications; perhaps these
>> could be adopted by a future Working Group to make them
>> Recommendations, but if they are widely adopted, they form an
>> effective standard in any case.
>>
>> I’ve taken it on to update the documents to be compatible with the
>> latest versions of ReSpec, and to make updates to the Framing spec
>> (unvalidated, as of yet) [3]. I propose that we accept this PR and
>> use those documents as the basis of working to a future 1.1 release
>> of JSON-LD.
>>
>> See the issue list for those that are tentatively tagged as being
>> included in a 1.1 release, and the CG may certainly consider
>> additional features.
>>
>> At this point, I’d be happy to see active engagement on the mailing
>> list to move these issues forward; I’m prepared to do the heavy
>> lifting on the specification documents, and to maintain tests and my
>> own Ruby implementation to match. Hopefully, other implementors and
>> heavy users can actively engage in making this happen (perhaps an
>> hour a week). It may be that we’ll want to start up the bi-weekly
>> calls we used to discuss and resolve on these issues prior to moving
>> into the RDF WG.
>>
>> As not everyone follows the GitHub issue tracker, discussion on the
>> mailing list is probably most effective, where we can use the issue
>> tracker to record decisions, and discuss the details of updating the
>> specifications themselves.
>>
>> Gregg Kellogg gregg@greggkellogg.net
>>
>> [1]
>> https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues?q=is%3Aopen+
>> is%3Aissue+label%3A1.1
>>
>>
>> [2] http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/json-ld-framing/
>
>> [3] https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/pull/425
>>
>>
>>
>>
>


-- 
Rob Sanderson
Semantic Architect
The Getty Trust
Los Angeles, CA 90049