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

Re: release process for 1.1 libraries?

From: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2018 13:03:17 -0800
Message-ID: <CABevsUE=br_xgoeLR8Au8X1x12Q5h4FyAwi2mypgh4-GJ_FmqQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
Cc: "David I. Lehn" <dil@lehn.org>, Linked JSON <public-linked-json@w3.org>
+1 to releasing the libraries. If a WG decides to break a well adopted
feature (hopefully for good reasons) then it's a clear indication of a 2.0
rather than 1.1.

Semantic versioning on the library and clear documentation as to which
features are 1.1 and hence to be treated with some caution at this stage,
seems like ample warning that things might change.


On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 11:03 AM, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>

> > On Feb 7, 2018, at 10:46 AM, David I. Lehn <dil@lehn.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> > What do people think about releasing libraries with 1.1 draft spec
> support?  Gregg Kellogg has done some great work adding 1.1 support to
> jsonld.js and pyld.  We'd like to release that code for people to use but
> I'm unsure on how to best do it.  Once the code is out there people will
> start using and depending on the features.  If changes need to be made
> before 1.1 is final, it would be nice to be able to change anything as
> needed.
> >
> > Libraries can use a semantic versioning scheme, and if the spec changes,
> that will bump up the version.  But how do we deal with the JSON-LD data
> itself?  We want to avoid needing tricky compatibility code for possible
> old draft behavior.  Is this enough of a problem to even need a solution?
> "@version": "1.1-draft-1" or similar might be nice, but that doesn't have
> the 1.0 processor fail behavior.  "@version": [1.1, "draft-1"] could work,
> and arrays would even allow a string "1.1" version, but maybe that's too
> confusing.  Other schemes are possible too, for 1.1 processor to read other
> flags, etc.  Thoughts?
> People have been using my Ruby JSON-LD library for a while, which has
> these issues released. Indeed, semantic versioning is a way to introduce a
> breaking change to the library, but you have a point about people creating
> data which relies on this.
> Not sure about putting more semantics in @version. If the eventual WG
> decides to break compatibility with CG 1.1 issues, then they would likely
> need to signal this with a different version number.
> > The easiest thing to do is release the libs, and document that all 1.1
> features are for draft specs and subject to change.  User beware.
> In whatever state, I think the libraries need to be released, if only as a
> pre-release, as people do rely on features such as id maps now, and likely
> other features.
> Gregg
> > -dave

Rob Sanderson
Semantic Architect
The Getty Trust
Los Angeles, CA 90049
Received on Wednesday, 7 February 2018 21:35:05 UTC

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