W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-linked-json@w3.org > October 2016

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

From: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 10:07:49 -0700
Message-ID: <CABevsUH1mu3FvKxghFzEejHR1UdL_Y74gDnhyZiMwEMowXZQeA@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Linked JSON <public-linked-json@w3.org>
Thanks for pushing forwards with this Gregg!  Much appreciated and look
forwards to contributing.


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
Received on Monday, 3 October 2016 17:08:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:18:49 UTC