Re: JSON-LD Working Group Charter Approved; Call for Participation

My 2 cents ... we initially tried to keep at least information flowing from
the Annotation WG to the CG, but it was a lot of effort for very little
actual gain, given the high degree of overlap of people who were actually
participating and that the public wg list can be read by anyone, allowing
the watchers/lurkers to continue to watch/lurk.

So I agree with what has been said previously. All technical work
transitions to the W3C structures (IRC, mailing list, github). The tests I
also agree are less obvious, but for consistency, I would keep them
together with the relevant specifications. In the Annotation WG we
immediately split them into a completely different part of the w3c github
structure [1] which made them hard to find and hard to develop.

The CG can and should continue to act as outreach, advocacy and discussion
around use of the current specifications, or a venue for answering
questions about the 1.1 process.

Rob

[1] https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt


On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 12:18 AM Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:

> I think Gregg answered most of your questions, but let me just reaffirm
> them…
>
> B.t.w., Rob has undergone the same thing a few years ago: the Annotation
> CG turned into a WG for standardization, and with the closure of the latter
> the CG picked up again. We are following the same model here.
>
> On 7 Jun 2018, at 23:51, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net> wrote:
>
> On Jun 7, 2018, at 11:50 AM, David I. Lehn <dil@lehn.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 8:55 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
>
> If you are part of a member company, you should join right away. If you
> think of applying for an Invited Experts' position, you should contact the
> chairs (Rob & Benjamin) and me, and we can then take it from there…
> ...
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: JSON-LD Working Group Charter Approved; Call for Participation
> ...
> The Director is pleased to announce the approval of the JSON-LD Working
> Group charter:
>  https://www.w3.org/2018/03/jsonld-wg-charter.html
> ...
> Use this form to join the group; the form will also instruct you how to
> nominate participants:
>  https://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/107714/join
> ...
> More information on the JSON-LD Working Group can be found on its homepage:
>  https://www.w3.org/2018/json-ld-wg/
> ...
>
>
> Hi,
> Can we get an explanation on how we are using various resources going
> forward in the WG?  I understand the idea of using w3c scoped
> resources for this WG, but it's very confusing right now as there is
> duplication of every possible thing.
>
> email:
> There is public-linked-json and now public-json-ld-wg.  Which topics
> go to which group?
>
>
> The CG still exists, but is dormant.
>
>
> I believe that is the operative term!
>
>
> I will certainly continue to follow public-linked-json@w3.org, but WG
> related emails should go to the appropriate WG list (public-json-ld-wg).
>
>
> The 'official' discussion list will be public-json-ld-wg@w3.org. We
> shouldn't forget that there may (hopefully will!) be people on the WG who
> are not members of the CG, so we should not use the current CG email list
> for anything significant.
>
>
> irc:
> Now there's both freenode and w3c #json-ld channels.  Which is used for
> what?
>
>
> The w3c is for WG related discussions, but there’s obviously some overlap.
>
>
> Same as above.
>
>
> specs:
> The github json-ld org had everything.  Now there are a handful of new
> spec and site repos in the w3c org.  What content and issues go where?
> How are we managing all the current issues in the json-ld org?  Are
> these new w3c repos the primary spec sources going forward forever?
> It's a shame to not copy over the spec commit history if so.
>
>
> We certainly need to discuss this in the WG, but I presume that each spec
> has it’s own issue list, but we could consolodate and use
> https://github.com/json-ld-wg/issues for all, which would allow for
> better cross-linking.
>
>
> This is exactly right. The issues list on the WG level should be used for
> general issues, if any (and I do not expect that to be very busy), and we
> will then have the three separate issue's list for the three documents.
>
>
> sites:
> What's supposed to be on the json-ld.org site now?  Are the latest
> spec links supposed to point at w3c repos now?  Or have both CG spec
> links and WG spec links?  Lots of links and info on json-ld.org need
> to be updated so people understand all these resource changes.
>
>
> Before the CG was reactivated, the “latest” links were sent to w3.org/TR/,
> so I suppose we’ll do the same thing, but for the automated Echidna copies,
> or whatever is common for other WGs.
>
>
> As we go on, the latest spec will be on the W3C repos for the editor's
> drafts, and the /TR for the published working drafts and higher (CR, PR,
> and finally Rec).
>
> Echidna does not come into this picture. What Echidna will do (when we set
> it up, ie, after the FPWD publication) is simply give us an easy way to
> publish an editor's draft as a WD without going through the administrative
> hassle of publishing via the Webmaster. But that is transparent to the
> outside world.
>
> Whether the current short name would be redirected to the latest /TR
> version: this is a separate discussion. We can of course do it although, I
> must admit, I am not 100% comfortable with this: the official, say,
> canonical URL will be the one on /TR, and I would prefer that one to be
> widely used.
>
> (It will be a separate discussion whether, for 1.1, we would mint a
> separate URL on /TR or we simply reuse the URL for the 1.0 version. Both
> are possible, it will be up to us to decide.)
>
>
> test suite:
> Currently tests are in github json-ld group in json-ld.org,
> normalization, and/or tests repos.  Where is all this living going
> forward?
>
>
> Good question, the WG may want these in it’s space, but they’re a
> well-known place for people to look at, and were used for the 1.0 docs. So,
> to be determined.
>
>
> TBD indeed. I personally do not have a strong feeling about it. However,
> we should recognize that W3C makes a backup regularly of all github content
> in the 'w3c' organization; this may have become even more important in
> light of the latest MS/Github deal.
>
>
> post-WG:
> What happens with all the above after the WG is done?
>
>
> As with the 1.0 effort, the CG should be reactivated. Replaying the
> commits back into the json-ld.org repo may be problematic, as we’ll be
> loosing the history when moving into the WG repos.
>
>
> Things go back to the CG. However, there is no reason to go 'back' to the
> json-ld.org repo. The practice, hitherto, is that the CG inherits the WG
> repositories, including the errata management, and there is no requirement
> on the W3C side to move them out because they are not under a WG control
> any more. Ie, I could envisage a situation whereby the CG's repositories
> will be the (inherited) W3C repositories. This is the case for the
> Annotation, CSVW, or POE Working Groups' repositories which have all gone
> through similar cycles.
>
>
> Did I miss anything?  If someone figures all this out, maybe make a
> checklist of all email, irc, and repos that everyone needs to now join
> and follow.
>
>
> The WG homepage at https://www.w3.org/2018/json-ld-wg/ should list
> everything used by the group.
>
>
> Indeed. There are pages on the WG home page for some of these issues;
> apart from the home page, see
>
> https://www.w3.org/2018/json-ld-wg/WorkMode/
> https://www.w3.org/2018/json-ld-wg/Misc/publishing
> https://www.w3.org/2018/json-ld-wg/Meetings/
>
> (Some of these pages are still in need for finalization.) If there is
> something missing or wrong, please propose changes or additions (either by
> mail or through a PR).
>
> Thanks!
>
> Ivan
>
>
>
> Gregg
>
> Thanks.
>
> -dave
>
>
>
>
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C
> Publishing@W3C Technical Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +31-641044153
> ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
>
>

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