W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-linked-json@w3.org > February 2018

Re: [MINUTES] W3C JSON-LD CG Call 2018-02-05

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2018 20:54:05 +0100
Cc: Linked JSON <public-linked-json@w3.org>
Message-Id: <4441BC15-A6E8-474B-9949-05AA03350833@w3.org>
To: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
To be precise: I don't think I should be listed as present. I could not connect and for other reasons I couldn't use my landline either. So I had to give up...

Ivan

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

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



> On 5 Feb 2018, at 20:17, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net> wrote:
> 
> Thanks to Benjamin Young for scribing this week! The minutes for this week’s JSON-LD CG teleconference are now available: https://json-ld.org/minutes/2018-02-05/index.html.
> 
> Full text of the discussion follows for W3C archival purposes.
> 
> Gregg Kellogg
> gregg@greggkellogg.net
> 
> JSON-LD Community Group Minutes for 2018-02-05
> 
> Agenda:
>  https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-linked-json/2018Feb/0000.html
> Topics:
>  1. Announcements: new playgrounds!
>  2. Updates on the Charter
>  3. https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/pull/487
>  4. https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/pull/573 
>  5. https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/pull/573
>  6. https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/pull/574
>  7. https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/pull/578
>  8. https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/pull/582
> Resolutions:
>  1. Have one playground that handles both 1.0 and 1.1 ; explore 
>    ways to make the processing mode as user friendly as possible
>  2. merge #487
>  3. Merge #573
>  4. (process) Use github milestones to manage PRs (to try and 
>    merge) and Issues (to discuss)
>  5. Don't merge #582, resolve #477 as won't fix (with rationales 
>    from the call)
> Action Items:
>  1. merge 574 and 575
>  2. merge 578
>  3. Update the charter to explicitly call out framing as a 
>    deliverable
> Organizer:
>  Gregg Kellogg and Rob Sanderson
> Scribe:
>  Benjamin Young
> Present:
>  Robert Sanderson, Ivan Herman, Niklas Lindström, Victor 
>  Charpenay, David Newbury, Benjamin Young, Gregg Kellogg, David I. 
>  Lehn
> Audio:
>  https://json-ld.github.io/minutes/2018-02-05/audio.ogg
> 
> Robert Sanderson: :(
> Ivan Herman: Trying to connect with linphone, it seems to do 
>  something but then breaks
> Ivan Herman: Giving up...
> Niklas Lindström: I'm having rther choppy sound :/
> Victor Charpenay: Hi! I tried to connect to the provided SIP 
>  addresses but all three time out.
> David Newbury: I'm here, as well
> Victor Charpenay: Am I missing something?
> Benjamin Young is scribing.
> 
> Topic: Announcements: new playgrounds!
> 
> Robert Sanderson:  You can now try out the in-progress 1.1 spec
>  ...gkellogg would you like to say more?
> Gregg Kellogg:  I think there is an open question if we want to 
>  keep 1.0 playground as primary
>  ...or if we want to move to a single playground
>  ...regarding compatibility, the dev playground does work for 
>  all the specs
>  ...with the exception of Framing
>  ...but I'm working on that feature for the playground now
> Robert Sanderson:  So. one playground or more
>  ...given the version compatibility scenario/compatibility, we 
>  might need to make it clear
> Niklas Lindström:  Maybe just a visual switch in the interface
>  ...so you can test them both in one playground, but switch 
>  between them
> Niklas Lindström:  I was thinking something similar
> Niklas Lindström: I type
> Niklas Lindström: I agree, something visual
> Niklas Lindström: But a very clear "pending / in development" cue 
>  for 1.1 mode
> Gregg Kellogg:  I'll point out that 1.1 is almost entirely 
>  compatible with 1.0
>  ...so unless you use new features in 1.1, you should have no 
>  trouble using a single playground
>  ...compacting IRIs is different
>  ...also, the playground does do sanity checking on definition 
>  keywords and container values
>  ...whereas the 1.0 spec did not
>  ...so I'm not sure that there's a value to switching between 
>  processors
>  ...maybe it would help someone to have the fallback to test 
>  things
>  ...but from the way a processor should operate, they should be 
>  the same
> Robert Sanderson:  So. I ran into is issue #581
>  ...it's hard to understand the fallback handling
> Gregg Kellogg:  So. maybe some switch in the HTML to invoke one 
>  version of the processor
>  ...there are two ways to turn on the mode
>  ...either the @version in the @context
>  ...or via the API
>  ...right now we're mostly talking about using the API to toggle 
>  it
>  ...to avoid using @version all the time
>  ...there are also other API flags we might want to expose also
> David I. Lehn:  I do agree there's good stuff we can expose
>  ...but I would be concerned about it getting too complicated
> Robert Sanderson:  Sounds like everyone's +1 on a single 
>  playground, but with some way to make it user friendly for 
>  switching
> Gregg Kellogg:  Do we want to put an action or proposal out 
>  there?
> 
> PROPOSAL:  Have one playground that handles both 1.0 and 1.1 ; 
>  explore ways to make the processing mode as user friendly as 
>  possible
> 
> Robert Sanderson: +1
> David I. Lehn: +1
> Gregg Kellogg: +1
> Benjamin Young: +1
> Niklas Lindström: +1 (Preferably with 1.0 as default until 1.1 is 
>  REC)
> 
> RESOLUTION: Have one playground that handles both 1.0 and 1.1 ; 
>  explore ways to make the processing mode as user friendly as 
>  possible
> 
> Robert Sanderson:  As niklasl_ said we should discuss default
>  ...I believe the default has to be 1.0
>  ...and you'd have to use UI or @version to toggle it on
> Gregg Kellogg:  Well. the way that the proposal was worded, it's 
>  a bit unclear
>  ...is it a 1.0 implementation and a UI to switch to a 1.1 
>  implementation?
>  ...or is it a 1.1 implementation with a toggle to process the 
>  1.0?
> Niklas Lindström: True. Yes, I think that'd be wise. (With a 
>  caveat about the default having the known 1.0 bugs perhaps...)
> Robert Sanderson:  Perhaps an amendment to the proposal would 
>  clarify it to a 1.1 implementation to a 1.0 default and the 
>  ability to toggle it
> David Newbury: That sounds reasonable to me.
> 
> PROPOSAL:  (amendment) The playground handles 1.0 with a 1.0 
>  implementation, rather than a 1.1 algorithm in 1.0 mode. 1.0 will 
>  be the default algorithm.
> 
> Robert Sanderson:  Bigbluehat you had thoughts on evangelism?
> Robert Sanderson: +1
> Benjamin Young:  We'd like to encourage folks to use 1.1, but not 
>  too quickly as they're still using 1.0 in the wild
> Gregg Kellogg: +1
> Niklas Lindström: +1
> David I. Lehn:  We'll have to make sure that's doable given 
>  namespace collisions
> Gregg Kellogg:  Could you just switch libraries as you can with 
>  switching HTML pages?
> David I. Lehn:  Possibly. it depends on the details, but we can 
>  sort those out if that's what's wanted
> Robert Sanderson:  I'd suggest we move on to the other topics
> Gregg Kellogg:  I would like to look at open pull requests on the 
>  call today
> 
> Topic: Updates on the Charter
> 
> Robert Sanderson:  Bigbluehat has volunteered to co-chair the 
>  group
>  ...should it be approved
> Gregg Kellogg: https://json-ld.github.io/charter/
>  ...along with iherman as our staff contact
>  ...so far, there's not been much of an opportunity to step 
>  forward, but if anyone has a concern, please email me
>  ...assuming everything goes according to plan, we have our two 
>  chairs
>  ...so we can be sure we have enough folks to do calls and admin 
>  stuff
>  ...we have our editors
>  ...and a staff contact
>  ...it was announced to the Advisory Board (AB)
>  ...no one seemed to flinch or bat an eyelid, so it's so far so 
>  good
>  ...we have to work out the details of what, by when, and by 
>  whom
>  ...but it looks promising to become a WG in the not too distant 
>  future
> Gregg Kellogg: 
>  https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/wiki/Changes-in-Community-Group-Drafts-Targeted-for-1.1
> Gregg Kellogg:  Just a note to say the charter points to this 
>  wiki page
>  ...which explains the changes in the CG drafts
> Robert Sanderson:  Anything else we need to add here
> Gregg Kellogg: https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/pulls
> Gregg Kellogg:  There are pull requests that need addressing
>  ...if we could add those to the agenda
>  ...along with the other open issues you highlighted
>  ...there is a longstanding PR on authorship
> 
> Topic: https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/pull/487
> 
> Robert Sanderson: https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/pull/487 
>  ...issue #487 handles adding a few more authors based on 
>  contribution
>  ...it's something the group ultimately needs to decide on
> 
> PROPOSAL:  merge #487
> 
>  ...the other ones are basically pulling through open PRs
> Gregg Kellogg: +1
> Robert Sanderson: +1
> Niklas Lindström: +1
> David Newbury: Apologies--have to drop off early.
> 
> RESOLUTION: merge #487
> 
> Gregg Kellogg: PR https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/pull/573
> 
> Topic: https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/pull/573 
> 
> Gregg Kellogg:  This one's about relative IRIs in JSON-LD
>  ...this updates it to more clearly define them relative to the 
>  document
>  ...rather than relative to the vocabulary
>  ...the issue remains open, though, for dealing with vocab 
>  position
>  ...such as @type
>  ...that's been confusing for some folks coming from the RDF 
>  field
>  ...this PR clarifies the intention of what the documents say 
>  curently
>  ...and its been properly accepted by the people who raised the 
>  issue
> Gregg Kellogg: Example <#foo>
> Robert Sanderson:  So. for example.
> In Turtle that might be a property location relative to the 
>  document
> Gregg Kellogg: {"#Foo": "bar"}
>  ...you can't do that in JSON-LD where you might have {"#foo": 
>  "bar"}
>  ...and unless you've setup your vocabulary to handle that, it 
>  might be ignored
>  ...we might want to setup some text that describes what happens 
>  if a term starts with an IRI delimiter
> Gregg Kellogg: "@Vocab": "@base"
>  ...or a way to say the vocabulary base is the same as the 
>  document base
>  ...such as "@vocab": "@base"
>  ...but none of those concerns really need to prevent this PR, 
>  because this leaves the door open to more discussion
>  ...while still clarifying things
> Robert Sanderson:  Right, so this is a clarifying PR, not a 
>  change in functionality
> Gregg Kellogg:  I'm trying to remember why we chose string 
>  concatenation vs. IRI processing
> 
> Topic: https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/pull/573
> 
> Gregg Kellogg: https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/488
> Gregg Kellogg:  Let's take that back to issue #488
> Niklas Lindström: Clarification: terms aren't *resolved* against 
>  vocab, they are string-concatenated.
>  ...so we can at least get the text inline with current behavior
> Robert Sanderson:  Any other questions?
> 
> PROPOSAL:  Merge #573
> 
> Niklas Lindström: .... This because vocab can end with "#", and 
>  if we didn't concatenate, keys (and type values) would have to 
>  begin with a "#".
> Robert Sanderson: +1
> Gregg Kellogg: +1
> Benjamin Young: +1
> Niklas Lindström: +1 (With clarification on vocab concatenation)
> David I. Lehn: +1
> 
> RESOLUTION: Merge #573
> 
> Niklas Lindström: ... This concatenation is equal to prefix 
>  handling in Trig/Turtle, RDFa and RDF/XML
> Gregg Kellogg: PT https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/pull/574
> 
> Topic: https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/pull/574
> 
> Gregg Kellogg:  This is about a document relative flag
>  ...it seems to be entirely editorial
>  ...and #575 is also editorial
>  ...trying to make it scan more easily for people
>  ...but does not change anything technically about it
> Robert Sanderson:  Take a quick look at #574
>  ...any objections?
> 
> ACTION: merge 574 and 575
> 
>  ...similarly any objections to #575?
>  ...it does make things easier to read, so it'd be hard to 
>  object to :)
> 
> Topic: https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/pull/578
> 
> Gregg Kellogg:  This is to make the example match what actually 
>  happens
>  ...it gets closer, but it's still not quite there
>  ...as a positive side-effect this extracts the examples
>  ...which has value for use in the playground
>  ...there's also been discussion of using YAML instead of JSON
> Robert Sanderson:  So this isn't even merely editorial, just 
>  infrastructure tweaks?
> Gregg Kellogg:  Correct
> Robert Sanderson:  No actually content changes
>  ...so not sure we even need a proposal
> David I. Lehn:  I have a question around why we're merging things 
>  like this?
>  ...vs. just using GitHub?
> Gregg Kellogg:  Well, it's about establishing process around how 
>  changes are made
>  ...if all of these had already had discussion and acceptance, 
>  then that'd be one thing
>  ...but this gives us a chance to get some feedback
> David I. Lehn:  Yeah...understand, but it just feels weird for 
>  the few of use that are here to confirm stuff already available 
>  online
> Robert Sanderson:  Mainly we're trying to keep things up-to-date, 
>  and processing things on the call helps push things forward
>  ...and re-enforces process
>  ...and as we move to a WG, it will become more important
>  ...does that help taaz ?
> David I. Lehn:  Yeah. it's fine, I guess
> Gregg Kellogg:  Yeah. it also goes back to the roll of the editor
>  ...if there's controversy, then the editor should seek to get 
>  it resolved
>  ...I do think it's helpful to get things discussed
> Benjamin Young:  Maybe we could use milestones for the calls?
>  ...we could group the issues to be considered/closed in the 
>  milestone
> 
> ACTION: merge 578
> 
> PROPOSAL:  (process) Use github milestones to manage PRs (to try 
>  and merge) and Issues (to discuss)
> 
> Gregg Kellogg: +1
> Robert Sanderson: +1
> Benjamin Young: +1
> David I. Lehn: +1
> Niklas Lindström: +1
> 
> RESOLUTION: (process) Use github milestones to manage PRs (to try 
>  and merge) and Issues (to discuss)
> 
> Topic: https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/pull/582
> 
> Gregg Kellogg: PR https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/pull/582
> Gregg Kellogg:  This PR explains the spec text around framing
>  ...it doesn't change any of the substance in the framing 
>  document
>  ...it just moves it into the API document
> Robert Sanderson:  Travis-ci isn't happy
> Gregg Kellogg:  Yes. that's because CI is applied and there's an 
>  issue with an earlier PR
>  ...I've since turned that off
>  ...we do hope to turn it back on
>  ...to validate examples and things
> Niklas Lindström:  I do have a concern about this making the API 
>  document longer
> Niklas Lindström: Sure
> David I. Lehn:  I may be repeating what niklasl_ has mentioned
>  ...is merging this going to cause problems for implementors?
>  ...what if someone doesn't want to include framing?
> Niklas Lindström: I've been a bit concerned that framing is a bit 
>  complex, and I've done alternate approaches in a couple of 
>  implementations
>  ...won't implementers need to include framing to pass 
>  validation?
> Gregg Kellogg:  Not sure there are any out there that don't 
>  support framing
>  ...google's maybe
> David I. Lehn:  Yeah. that's one of the key ones to be concerned 
>  about
> Gregg Kellogg:  It might be useful to suggest different levels of 
>  conformance
> Niklas Lindström: Rdflib-jsonld doesn't have one; it has a 
>  pending one which is simpler, it just "autoframes" based on @id
>  ...for instance, expansion and things are easier to implement 
>  without getting into compaction
>  ...so the bar is lower for integrating with RDF toolsets
>  ...and framing might be a feature that's beyond compaction
> Robert Sanderson:  As niklasl_ says, one of the python 
>  implementations doesn't
>  ...and framing seems like a separate beast than compaction
>  ...I'm not -1, but I'm not sure we need to have a single API 
>  document
> Gregg Kellogg:  The issues I was seeing were around options
> Niklas Lindström: Recall that e.g. redland (librdf) hasn't gone 
>  near json-ld because "too complex"
>  ...and having framing here means a single set of options for 
>  both
>  ...perhaps a way to handle it is through different levels of 
>  conformance
> Niklas Lindström: Really, it only needs expansion to get any 
>  json-ld into RDF, and it does only have to emit expanded json-ld 
>  to be useful for "full" json-ld processors...
> Gregg Kellogg: Related issue 
>  https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/477
> Benjamin Young:  Getting a gold star from the W3C via testing 
>  goes up with very MUST in the text
> 
> PROPOSAL:  Don't merge #582, resolve #477 as won't fix (with 
>  rationales from the call)
> 
> Gregg Kellogg:  So we need a counter proposal for not-merging
> Gregg Kellogg: +0.5
> Benjamin Young: +1
> Niklas Lindström: +1 (We can still publish a separate framing doc 
>  for 1.1 REC if we want to, right?)
> Robert Sanderson:  So, requirement in specs can cascade, but the 
>  testing tools don't get that conditional nature of the text
>  ...where "if you do section X, then you MUST do the following"
> 
> RESOLUTION: Don't merge #582, resolve #477 as won't fix (with 
>  rationales from the call)
> 
>  ...the testing just doesn't map to that
> Gregg Kellogg:  We should also then reconsider our charter text
> 
> ACTION: Update the charter to explicitly call out framing as a 
>  deliverable
> 
>  ...to make sure its clear which dcuments contain which thing
> Robert Sanderson:  K. we're a bit past time, so off we go
>  ...gkellogg thanks so much for your work here!
>  ...and we'll also be looking into our voip options before next 
>  call
>  ...thanks everyone!
> Robert Sanderson: Adjourn :)
> Robert Sanderson: Oh, and thanks to Benjamin for scribing!
> You're welcome! :)
> Robert Sanderson:  Anything else you need from me?
> Robert Sanderson: I don't think so
> Robert Sanderson: I'll add the comment to #477 about rationale 
>  for wontfix
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 5 February 2018 19:54:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:18:51 UTC