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

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

From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 23:00:36 -0400
To: public-linked-json@w3.org
Message-ID: <a036eb4f-22fd-aae8-7791-1cfe498e2895@dbooth.org>
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
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 30 September 2016 03:01:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:18:48 UTC