W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > December 2012

JSON-LD Telecon Minutes for 2012-12-11

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 13:43:51 -0500
Message-ID: <50C77EE7.6010002@digitalbazaar.com>
To: Linked JSON <public-linked-json@w3.org>
CC: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
The minutes from today's telecon are now available. Thanks to Gregg for
scribing! I haven't been able to clean up and upload the audio yet.


Full text of the discussion follows including a link to the audio

JSON-LD Community Group Telecon Minutes for 2012-12-11

   1. Ongoing research into JSON-LD .graphify() API
   2. ISSUE-200: JSON-LD API Review by Robin Berjon
   3. ISSUE-182: Graph vs. DataSet
   4. ISSUE-153: Define error handler behavior
   5. ISSUE-201: Update dataset examples
   6. ISSUE-202: Do not compact @graph arrays with one element
   1. Move the .toRDF() and .fromRDF() WebIDL API calls into a
      separate document that will not be a part of the JSON-LD 1.0
      work. The to/from RDF algorithms will still be a part of the
      JSON-LD API 1.0 work.
   2. Add a note to the "Relationship to RDF" section to specify
      that if clients that do not understand Datasets are to be
      supported using JSON-LD, that the primary information should go
      in the default graph.
   3. Keep values of @graph that are arrays consisting of just
      one element as arrays.
   4. Do not compact "node references" that are values of @graph
      to strings.
   Manu Sporny
   Gregg Kellogg
   Manu Sporny, Niklas Lindström, Gregg Kellogg, Lin Clark,
   Markus Lanthaler, François Daoust

Topic: Ongoing research into JSON-LD .graphify() API

Manu Sporny is scribing.
Niklas Lindström:  I've been working on something -
Gregg Kellogg:  looks interesting...
Niklas Lindström:  The LD.connect() thing is my extension to the
   JSON-LD API. I'm going to work on it some over the holidays. I'm
   trying to use local names for everything... maybe raise an error
   if there are collisions.
Gregg Kellogg:  Ivan had JSON-LD output, he constructed a context
   on-the-fly based on what the RDFa processor had read.
Niklas Lindström:  If you are computing things, you could try to
   figure out the most compact possible context. The JSON you'd get
   back would be very compact, but it would not work for the more
   advanced RDFa use cases. It would work for every schema.org use
   case in existence, which is 90% of every developer that wants
   this API.
Markus Lanthaler: Lin, just out of curiosity: why do you depend
   on the fact that empty arrays are preserved (during compaction
   for the Drupal use case)?
Lin Clark: Markus, if you want to remove values from a field on
Niklas Lindström:  The graph API may be interesting because you
   get access to things like property paths. It seems plausible that
   I could implement this with hooks back to the live DOM tree.
   Maybe with DOM mutation listeners. If you manipulated the DOM
   with JS, yo'd be able to see that live when you navigated the
Markus Lanthaler: Lin, do you mean to distinguish between not set
   vs. set to empty array
Gregg Kellogg:  I think the first one for schema.org looks quite
   nice - the inverse of this we don't necessarily have a solution
Lin Clark: Markus, no, set in PATCH means do nothing to that
   field. So if it already has values, you couldn't remove them
Niklas Lindström:  I've thought a bit more about .connect() -
   maybe you can add custom indexes for it, the @context is one
   input... the next one might be definition of indexes and which
   key you want to use for inverses. Karl Dubost asked for an RDFa
   API, his example needed something to getByType(). You'd go with
   the Graph API or the Microdata API (for RDFa) or you'd need a
   .connect() implementation. I think .connect() gives much more for
   a fairly cheap price.
Markus Lanthaler: Lin, I see... but it seems to be a bit brittle
Gregg Kellogg:  Since we're not going to do .connect() in this
   version, we should look for another group to attach that work to.
Lin Clark: Markus, what do you think is brittle there?
Niklas Lindström:  Maybe we should start a CG focused on these
   sorts of APIs. The RWW group has so much on its schedule.
Markus Lanthaler: Lin, well the thing is that if you look at it
   from a graph perspective (abstract) both are equivalent... you
   would have to set it to something likeowl:Nothing to clearly
   differentiate between the two cases
Niklas Lindström:  I start a new job at Royal Swedish Library -
   they're interested in Linked Data, could use a lot of this work
Markus Lanthaler: Lin, just wanted to point that out.. if it
   works for you this way it's probably simpler to keep it as is
Lin Clark: Markus, cool, thanks for pointing it out

Topic: ISSUE-200: JSON-LD API Review by Robin Berjon

Gregg Kellogg is scribing.
Manu Sporny:  We left off when talking about asynchronous
   … The async interface is probably the way to go.
   … We have previously discussed using just the async, but
   allowing people to use the sync if they like.
   … We also have different conformance levels, sot that
   implementations can be just processing, and do their own API.
   … Robin notes that we list errors, but don't define constants:
   we need to do that.
   … We don't need all UPPER CASE errors, we can just use
   … For the API, people are moving away from numbers to text
Markus Lanthaler:  We need to collect the text strings or
   whatever, perhaps in an enum.
Manu Sporny:  error codes that are numbers aren't too useful;
   strings are better.
Manu Sporny:  next item, is loosing information an issue? Should
   we throw an error?
   … Don't return a lossy compaction. If you would loose data,
   don't compact.
Markus Lanthaler:  we don't do that, but we may fail (e.g., List
   of Lists).
Manu Sporny:  resonse to robin is that we don't do lossy
   … robin doesn't want it to throw an error, but there are
   problems if we keep everything around.
   … If you don't specify how a term expands, then it is dropped;
   typically in expansion.
François Daoust:  One of the use cases robin may have had in mind
   is being able to take an arbitrary JSON-LD document and apply a
   context then compact.
   … If you do that, there may still be problems in compaction.
   Are there workarounds? Keep it in expanded form?
Manu Sporny:  if it expands correctly, it will stay expanded if
   you don't have a mapping when you comact.
   … you can get errors in either expansion or compaction. It
   depends on what you're doing, but in general, if you have a
   successful expansion, you will not loose data when compaction; it
   just may not completely compact.
Manu Sporny:  next thing: you might want to be clear about
   "copying the input".
   … WebIDL doesn't have number, use one of the appropriate
   numeric types.
Markus Lanthaler:  a JSON number depends on the form, either an
   integer or a float.
Manu Sporny:  question is about WebIDL numeric version.
   … change "string" to DOMString, and numbers appropriately.
Niklas Lindström: .. the unsigned long IDL type mapping to the
   Number type in ECMAScript (from http://www.w3.org/TR/WebIDL/)
Markus Lanthaler: For the record, the sourceValue member of
   JsonLdProcessingError might be a number.. should be an integer
   but probably we will drop it anyway
   … toRDF is designed wrong; should be a single callback with a
   quad array.
   … ConformanceCallback: will remove; just not sure how to
   report "linting" errors through issue feedback.
   … what if the developer doesn't provide a callback?
Markus Lanthaler:  question is what if it isn't ever called back?
Manu Sporny:  issues with IRI definitions ...
   … Better to use dictionary with keys.
   … Basically, he's saying we shouldn't have interfaces, just
   dictionaries with keys.
   … We want objects to be easily used in developer code.
Manu Sporny:  the problem with passing back strings, is you need
   to do some magic, as you don't know the type of what you're
   dealing with. Some people will be unhappy no matter what we do.
   … If you do new IRI and new Node, it annoys web apps folks,
   because it should just be a dictionary.
   … if you use a dict, you're stuck with .type and .value, and
   it's less elegant.
Niklas Lindström:  is this just about to/from RDF?
Manu Sporny:  this is a general problem, IMO.
Niklas Lindström:  until we know what the exact needs are, we're
   not doing ourselves a favor by defining them. It might be better
   to just use a dictionary.
   … to/from RDF would just translate one form into another
   (objects with keys from triples).
   … We also have this in SPARQL JSON output where they have
   … on the other hand, we might not have to define it at all, as
   the expanded form already references the RDF.
   … This is an argument for getting rid of type definitions, and
   maybe the to/from RDF API calls themselves.
   … In my work, I just expand JSON-LD or produce it directly.
   … Similarly, I've used expanded JSON-LD to create a graph.
   Otherwise, it's hard to know where the contract for the JSON-LD
   API ends. It might be better to just leave this to something
Markus Lanthaler:  why can't we just re-use our JSON-LD
   constructs, @iri, @value, etc.
   … We don't really need to define new structures.
Gregg Kellogg:  I'm starting to feel like the API is beyond what
   we want to do. Once you get into the nuances of the API, it
   becomes a different conversation. Is this something that we
   should really be spending time on? [scribe assist by Manu Sporny]
Gregg Kellogg:  We're already postponing .connect() to another
   CG. Since we've separated the processing from the IDL interface,
   I'm coming around to that viewpoint. [scribe assist by Manu
Manu Sporny:  as a data point, this is the exactly the same
   conversation we went through with the RDFa API.
   … One of the negatives that comes out is that the work doesn't
   get done, or is delayed.
   … For DB, the API is really important, without a solid API we
   don't have something to implement against. We'd just end up going
   off and doing our own thing, and wouldn't sync with an API.
   … If feel like if we through out the API, it's going too far.
   There are just a few tweaks we need with the API rather than
   doing wholesale changes.
Niklas Lindström:  I am sympathetic to both positions. Regarding
   the RDFa API, although it's being asked for, I'm glad we didn't
   give them what we were originally looking on.
   … In this case, i have the feeling that the good parts are
   expand and compact, which needs to be precicely defined. I think
   that expanded JSON-LD represents RDF.
   … I don't think it's necessary to define an API for that, as
   it's just data describing itself.
   … We could use those concepts to represent the data and the
   Nodes represent all we need semantically.
   … I don't see the need for to/from RDF API methods, as other
   tools can just work with expanded JSON-LD. Saying you need an API
   indicates that it's something that's hard.
   … we have an array of resource descriptions.
Manu Sporny:  your argument is to remove the API from the spec?
Niklas Lindström:  not the entire API: keep expand and compact.
   to/from RDF do not seem necessary. We should have a precise
   definition of what the expanded JSON-LD form means as RDF.
Markus Lanthaler:  I kind of agree with niklas about dropping the
   RDF part.
   … It might be good to factor out flatting as a separate
   method, instead of hiding it behind a flag.
   … I agree that to/from RDF are not very useful as an API.
   You'd need adaptor code anyway.
Niklas Lindström:  from an RDF point of view, it would be easier
   to just look at flattened expanded JSON-LD as an RDF expression.
Markus Lanthaler:  it's completely deterministic.
Markus Lanthaler:  if we remove to/from RDF from WebIDL, we
   should make it clear that there's a way to get a deterministic
   shape out of an arbitrary document: expand with flatten.
Manu Sporny:  I've always preferred having a flatten API method.
Niklas Lindström:  the IRI and Node interfaces are only needed
   for to/from RDF.

PROPOSAL: Move the .toRDF() and .fromRDF() WebIDL API calls into
   a separate document that will not be a part of the JSON-LD 1.0
   work. The to/from RDF algorithms will still be a part of the
   JSON-LD API 1.0 work.

Gregg Kellogg: +1
Niklas Lindström: +1
François Daoust: +1
Manu Sporny: -0.5
Markus Lanthaler: +1

RESOLUTION: Move the .toRDF() and .fromRDF() WebIDL API calls
   into a separate document that will not be a part of the JSON-LD
   1.0 work. The to/from RDF algorithms will still be a part of the
   JSON-LD API 1.0 work.

Niklas Lindström: For a shape of the "just dictionary" RDF node
   representation, I suggest using
Manu Sporny:  we might want to consider changing IRI to URL.
Niklas Lindström: .. In that other document
Manu Sporny:  the concern is that the API will be built on an
   HTML5 DOM, so we should align with that.
   … We could say that when we say URL we mean an
   internationalized resource identifier.
   … If we don't do that, we're in violation of the HTML5 DOM.
Markus Lanthaler:  we don't have an IRI concept in the API, just
   in the algorithms.
Manu Sporny:  we should just define URL in the API.
Manu Sporny:  will the API users ask for to/from RDF.
Manu Sporny:  developers work with APIs.
Niklas Lindström:  compact seems very useful for developers.
Manu Sporny:  the URL/IRI thing is really just terminology.
   … If we talk about things in the prose, we need to draw the
We'll need to separate the WebIDL definitions used within the
   to/from RDF.
Manu Sporny:  Robin's stuff is resolved now, after we make the
   editorial/design changes discussed.

Topic: ISSUE-182: Graph vs. DataSet

Manu Sporny: https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/182
Manu Sporny:  seems to be resolved in conformance with RDF WG.
   … I wonder if we should make a slight change the the language.
   … We might want to say that the client should look in the
   top-most object and use that value, or use the first item in the
   … I wonder if we could give some feedback to clients so they
   know where to look for the default graph.
   … Either the top-level object.
Gregg Kellogg:  I think it's problematic to rely on the JSON-LD
   Syntax - in the cases that I was talking about, they're RDF
   consumers. [scribe assist by Manu Sporny]
Gregg Kellogg:  I'm sympathetic to the idea of being able to
   provide some indication of which graph to use from a dataset, if
   you're just using it - but something that relies on the JSON-LD
   syntax is not going to solve the types of problems I'm concerned
   about. [scribe assist by Manu Sporny]
Gregg Kellogg:  You might type a graph as something being the
   "jsonld:PrincipleGraph" - that's the item that contains the
   graph-like results. [scribe assist by Manu Sporny]
Manu Sporny:  I'm trying to get the concept of "the subject of"
   or "primary topic".
   … to RDF consumers you're saying that the primary topic is the
   default graph.
Gregg Kellogg:  I think that the best route would be sort of some
   for of type on a graph that allowed us to designate it as the one
   that is "most interesting" [scribe assist by Manu Sporny]
Niklas Lindström:  I'm confused of what we're trying to do. Are
   we defining standard rules for the consumption of datasets?
   … I think we're getting away from what JSON-LD can say.
   … Anything else is semantics and should be defined elsewhere.
Markus Lanthaler:  I agree with niklas.
   … To address the signature, both data should be in named
   graphs. The signature only makes sense if you can interpret the
   named graphs.
   … It makes no sense to assert something that you can't
Manu Sporny:  I'm concerned that we might need to serve the data
   in a different form than it is naturally served.
can be added to the payload (of the default graph) as a graph
   named by <iri>?
   … The top-most object is the signature information, and inside
   the @graph is the data that is primary, but it must be named.
Gregg Kellogg:  [explains how this already works in PaySwarm].
   The principle data is in a named graph, and you use the data to
   sign it - you have something that makes sense. The best
   alternative is take the graph that takes the name of it's
   location. [scribe assist by Manu Sporny]
Manu Sporny:  in web payments we have a default graph with the
   signature and a named graph with the asserted data.
Markus Lanthaler:  it's a problem if you serve datasets with
François Daoust: [Looking at it from a syntax perspective, the
   example 50 discussed in issue 201 (which matches current
   discussion, AFAICT) does look much better when metadata is in the
   default graph and data in a named graph than on its possible
   update that puts metadata in a named graph and data back to the
   default graph]
Gregg Kellogg:  [explains why this needs to be placed in a
   semantics document] [scribe assist by Manu Sporny]

Topic: ISSUE-153: Define error handler behavior

Manu Sporny: https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/153
No progress on this issue.

Topic: ISSUE-201: Update dataset examples

Manu Sporny: https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/201
Manu Sporny:  given our discussion, we should update the dataset
Markus Lanthaler:  it really just matters if you're a consumer
   that can just deal with graphs.
Gregg Kellogg:  Yes, agree with Markus. We are conflating clients
   that understand datasets with ones that do not. We don't need to
   add this text. [scribe assist by Manu Sporny]
François Daoust: [I'm still at a loss as to how a provider can
   tell whether a client understands datasets or not. It needs that
   info to serve the appropriate form, right?]
Markus Lanthaler: tidoust, the provider doesn't have to know
Manu Sporny:  a provider can provide multiple endpoints, or just
   always merge data into the default graph.

PROPOSAL: Add a note to the "Relationship to RDF" section to
   specify that if clients that do not understand Datasets are to be
   supported using JSON-LD, that the primary information should go
   in the default graph.

Gregg Kellogg: +1
Manu Sporny: +1
Niklas Lindström: +1
Markus Lanthaler: +1
François Daoust: +1

RESOLUTION: Add a note to the "Relationship to RDF" section to
   specify that if clients that do not understand Datasets are to be
   supported using JSON-LD, that the primary information should go
   in the default graph.

Topic: ISSUE-202: Do not compact @graph arrays with one element

Manu Sporny: https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/202
Markus Lanthaler:  basically just make sure the value of @graph
   is always an array.
Manu Sporny:  uniformity probably wins over the array access tax.
Niklas Lindström: .. "Please note, this doesn't affect the fact
   that the default graph's @graph is optimized away."

PROPOSAL: Keep values of @graph that are arrays consisting of
   just one element as arrays.

Markus Lanthaler: +1
Gregg Kellogg: +1
Manu Sporny: +1
François Daoust: +1
Niklas Lindström: +1

RESOLUTION: Keep values of @graph that are arrays consisting of
   just one element as arrays.

PROPOSAL: Do not compact "node references" that are values of
   @graph to strings.

Manu Sporny: +1
Markus Lanthaler: +1
François Daoust: +1
Niklas Lindström: +1
Gregg Kellogg: +1

RESOLUTION: Do not compact "node references" that are values of
   @graph to strings.

Niklas Lindström: ..
Niklas Lindström:  this copy is a reduced version of my RDFa
   transformation, without framing.
   … It was easy to keep it up to date.
Manu Sporny:  we're wondering how small we can get a minified
   version, but it's half the size without framing and to/from RDF

-- manu

Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny)
President/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: HTML5 and RDFa 1.1
Received on Tuesday, 11 December 2012 18:44:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:23 UTC