W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > December 2013

JSON-LD Telecon Minutes for 2013-12-17

From: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 17:38:15 -0800
Message-Id: <6FCD88DB-B06A-4668-AC8C-5925B8947058@greggkellogg.net>
Cc: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
To: Linked JSON <public-linked-json@w3.org>
Thanks to Manu for scribing! The minutes from this week's telecon are
now available.


A full transcript of the meeting can be found below. Audio for the call
is available at the link provided above.

JSON-LD Community Group Telecon Minutes for 2013-12-17

   1. Recommendation Publication Schedule
   2. Future work of CG
   3. Extension mechanisms for JSON-LD
   1. Propose that the RDF WG petition the Director to take 
      JSON-LD to Recommendation immediately after the publication of 
      the Proposed Recommendations for the RDF 1.1 work.
Action Items:
   1. gkellogg to send an email to public-vocabs to ask for 
      JSON-LD Context download from schema.org.
   2. manu to describe direction of Normalization
   3. gkellogg to push on schema.org for context publication.
   Gregg Kellogg
   Manu Sporny
   Manu Sporny, Gregg Kellogg, Dave Longley, Paul Kuykendall, Markus 
   Lanthaler, David I. Lehn, Niklas Lindström

Manu Sporny is scribing.

Topic: Recommendation Publication Schedule

Gregg Kellogg:  There have been a number of emails going by in 
   the last day or so about publication of JSON-LD. Invited RDF WG 
   chairs and W3C staff members.
Gregg Kellogg:  As a result of those conversations, we have a 
   proposal to take JSON-LD to REC right after RDF 1.1 specs go to 
Gregg Kellogg:  This is mostly dealt with by the staff. We will 
   want to get some resolutions down to smooth the process.
Gregg Kellogg:  The only slight objection to this path was from 
   Ivan. He felt that there would be more "thunder" if JSON-LD would 
   come out with the RDF 1.1 documents. Both Guus and David agreed 
   that JSON-LD is something different, and there are advantages to 
   having it out on its own separate form.
Gregg Kellogg:  Rather than trying to do this at the same time, 
   they said they'd support doing the PR and then REC for JSON-LD in 
Gregg Kellogg:  Is there any anecdotal evidence to take JSON-LD 
   to REC earlier than RDF 1.1 stuff?
Manu Sporny:  I've been having some offline emails with several 
   large deployers of JSON-LD [scribe assist by Gregg Kellogg]
Gregg Kellogg: ... (private conversations) asking about status so 
   that they can signal inside about going to production with 
   several tools and projects
Gregg Kellogg: ... They don't want to be in a position of 
   releasing a product which would then need a change.
Gregg Kellogg: ... This is why I'd like to get it published 
   sooner. There's no new work, even if it doesn't go to REC, it 
   doesn't affect anything, but it has a practical impact on people 
   that are using the technology.
Gregg Kellogg: ... The normative references to RDF docs are 
   fairly academic, and wouldn't affect an actual web developer.
Gregg Kellogg: ... Also, if RDF were to change drastically, there 
   would be a bigger issue in removing things rather than keeping 
   them in.
Gregg Kellogg: ... Delaying publication of JSON-LD seems more 
   academic rather than preventing something that could actually 
Gregg Kellogg: ... I think there's general agreement to take 
   JSON-LD to REC mimediately after RDF Concepts/MT publication

PROPOSAL: Propose that the RDF WG petition the Director to take 
   JSON-LD to Recommendation immediately after the publication of 
   the Proposed Recommendations for the RDF 1.1 work.

Gregg Kellogg: +1
Dave Longley: +1
Manu Sporny: +1
Paul Kuykendall: +1
Markus Lanthaler: +1
David I. Lehn: +1

RESOLUTION: Propose that the RDF WG petition the Director to take 
   JSON-LD to Recommendation immediately after the publication of 
   the Proposed Recommendations for the RDF 1.1 work.

Gregg Kellogg:  It'll be good to get the work out there. Lots of 
   hard work.

Topic: Future work of CG

Gregg Kellogg:  A couple of work items have been left hanging due 
   to the drive of getting the core work out.
Gregg Kellogg:  JSON-LD Framing has come up lately. RDF Graph 
   Normalization is also important. A streaming API has been 
   discussed as being useful for very large dataset dumps where 
   in-memory processing requirements are prohibitive.
Gregg Kellogg:  There has been talk about something like the 
   indexing mechanism, but a way to ignore a layer of keys.
Dave Longley:  We have a number of lingering issues on github, we 
   have a few more ideas that we could add to the @context.
Dave Longley:  We wrote these down on github as issues before.
Paul Kuykendall:  Has there been any other discussions w/ 
   Microsoft on OData alignment.
Gregg Kellogg:  No
Markus Lanthaler:  Nope.
Markus Lanthaler:  He said he'd send OData examples to the list 
   and we'd show how it could be modeled in JSON-LD.
Markus Lanthaler:  We didn't get that mail, unfortunately.
Gregg Kellogg:  There has been some discussion about making 
   JSON-LD compatible w/ HAL. Another place this came up is in the 
   Microdata definition - we could try to align JSON-LD w/ 
Gregg Kellogg:  I think we're seeing people wanting to use keys 
   and subobjects to compartmentalize data.
Markus Lanthaler:  Yeah, it doesn't work well if you have 
   properties that don't mean anything but you want to still have a 
   connection between two objects.
Gregg Kellogg:  What is the kind of framework underwhich we can 
   do extensions to JSON-LD w/o breaking the existing spec.

Topic: Extension mechanisms for JSON-LD

Manu Sporny:  Two main types of extensions: algorithmic, which 
   don't break the spec too much. Syntax changes have a chance to 
   destabilize. If we start making syntax additions we'd be needing 
   a JSON-LD 1.1 or 2.0. These should be discussions around 
   extensions, and not push things until we're sure we want to make 
   such changes. Framing is something we can play around with in the 
   API, same thing with Normalization and Streaming. Talking about 
   compartmentalization of object linking, we inevitably get into 
   talking about syntax. [scribe assist by Gregg Kellogg]
Manu Sporny:  There are two ways of approaching this 
   compartmentalization feature.
   ... The first is to create some API extension to transform 
   JSON data to JSON-LD. The second is to extend the syntax.
Gregg Kellogg:  Are JSON-LD Frames a part of the syntax?
Markus Lanthaler:  They're different... different media type, 
Gregg Kellogg:  Hmm, yes, but we do have code in the main 
   algorithms that deals w/ frame data, right?
Markus Lanthaler:  Yeah, but we don't need to stick to that 
Gregg Kellogg:  We do have a way of specifying which processing 
   rules to use.
Markus Lanthaler:  But not within the document.
Markus Lanthaler:  A lot of those mechanisms come from converting 
   other data to JSON-LD. We don't need to pollute the syntax w/ 
   conversion of old documents to JSON-LD.
Markus Lanthaler:  I think many people just want to use HAL is 
   because of the richer toolset.
Markus Lanthaler:  I think we should concentrate more on 
   tools/libraries around JSON-LD.
Manu Sporny:  We should work on tooling to solve issues rather 
   than looking at the standards right now. Make it easy for web 
   developers. [scribe assist by Gregg Kellogg]
Paul Kuykendall:  I agree. At what point are we betting on 
   winners and losers re: mindshare.
Paul Kuykendall:  The tooling is a better option, make it as 
   agnostic as possible.
Dave Longley:  I think we can move more quickly by working on 
   tools instead of working on syntax.
Gregg Kellogg:  One possibility would be to look at JSON-LD 
   Macros as the basis for some common tooling. It allows for ad-hoc 
   modification to get into a JSON-LD format. Anyone spent any 
   quality time w/ his work?
Markus Lanthaler:  Not really. Just syntactic transformation is 
   the least difficult part. The whole idea of Linked Data is much 
   more complicated than transforming JSON representations. You need 
   tools to show you the power of using such an approach.
Markus Lanthaler:  You need to build on top of it. Something that 
   looks simple, but has big improvements over HAL or something like 
Paul Kuykendall:  If you want to put extensions, where do you do 
   that? Should we say how to do that? We can keep the extensions 
   more isolated/sandboxed.
Manu Sporny:  We don't want to restrict people by telling people 
   how to do extensions.
Paul Kuykendall:  That's not what I mean, how do we tell people 
   they can work with the community. Which thread do you pull on 
   first? We need docs to tell people how to extend JSON-LD.
Paul Kuykendall:  We can maybe use HAL as the example, to show 
   some of the power of JSON-LD.
Manu Sporny:  Agreed.
Gregg Kellogg:  yeah, it could be a blog post. Someone could do 
   that and then we could create a CG note from it.
Markus Lanthaler:  The problem with those documents is that 
   nobody wants to write it. We can reach out. Answer people where 
   they're asking questions.
hard to explain people the interest in few word, i try to be 
   proselyte but i'm not able to convince people for now
Markus Lanthaler:  I don't understand why they can't publish a 
   JSON-LD Context.
Manu Sporny:  I don't know if this is something they're 
   interested in fixing.
Gregg Kellogg:  Dan Brickley was concerned that publishing a 
   JSON-LD Context would create many millions of requests to Google 
Gregg Kellogg:  We may have to build schema.org into our 
Markus Lanthaler:  Is the Context ready?
Gregg Kellogg:  He needs a Python program to translate schema.org 
   vocab to JSON-LD Context. He needs something like that.
Markus Lanthaler:  I think niklas already hacked something 
   together for that?
Gregg Kellogg:  I'll send an email out to public-vocabs.
Niklas Lindström: .. https://gist.github.com/niklasl/7873635
Dave Longley:  We could put the context in 
Gregg Kellogg: q?
Niklas Lindström:  I sent this to schema.org and Dan, didn't 
   receive any other response.
Niklas Lindström:  Yes, I think it's mostly there. I think Dan 
   wanted to discuss what we need wrt. coercing things that are 
   strings vs. things.
Niklas Lindström:  I adapted the script so it behaved in a sane 
   way by default. Don't know if it's enough.
Gregg Kellogg:  He may want commitment on tool providers to do 
   what they can in order to limit excessive invocations of that URL 
   via caching.
Gregg Kellogg:  Maybe you guys can follow that and emphasize it 
   so that we can get a commitment to get it done.

ACTION: gkellogg to send an email to public-vocabs to ask for JSON-LD Context download from schema.org.

Paul Kuykendall:  We need to list JSON-LD tools in a prominent 
Gregg Kellogg:  I'm not sure where else we might publish that. 
   Maybe on the JSON-LD landing page.
Paul Kuykendall:  The mailing list can be byzantine.
Gregg Kellogg:  Can we access the stats for the site?
Manu Sporny:  The whole reason DB started with JSON-LD is because 
   of web payments. And, of course, because of people on this call 
   it took on a life of it's own. Now that 1.0 is out there we need 
   to apply it to work. Framing's not that useful, but normalization 
   is quite important. We'll focus more on normalization; framing 
   will be done eventually, but don't have much time to work on it. 
   I don't think we'll have much time to work on tooling otherwise. 
   From our perspective, we're willing to put time in to RDF Graph 
   Normalization primarily, and bring that to REC. After that, 
   framing and other tooling. [scribe assist by Gregg Kellogg]
Gregg Kellogg: ... I imagine that there is other tooling as a 
   by-product of web payments (validation, etc.) and as a 
   side-effect we'll create some tools to verify hashs, signatures 
   and so forth. The action we'll take is where to take 
   Normalization next and getting it specced out. There are web site 
   updates, HAL conformance, and schema.org relationships.

ACTION: manu to describe direction of Normalization

ACTION: gkellogg to push on schema.org for context publication.

Manu Sporny:  I could try to put aside a day to work on the 
   json-ld.org site. I thought about reaching out to the local 
   university and offering to do a mentorship to get credit and work 
   on JSON-LD stuff. We could potentially get 4-5 people to 
   contribute. Also GSoC coming up again next summer. [scribe assist 
   by Gregg Kellogg]
Gregg Kellogg:  If we could start a conversation on tooling, we 
   can see what updates to the website need to be done.
Gregg Kellogg:  Next meeting - next Tuesday is off, after that is 
   New years. Let's meet again on the 7th of January.
Gregg Kellogg:  Let's see if we can get some progress by that 
Gregg Kellogg:  We should have regular but infrequent meetings to 
   keep pressure on JSON-LD to keep moving. We need to get more 
   people involved, to share the burden and for this to take off, it 
   can't remain the original core contributors. It needs a life of 
   its own.
Markus Lanthaler: pkuyken, can you hang on a second after the 
   call.. have a quick question
Gregg Kellogg:  I'll send out a meeting Agenda for the next 
   meeting before the 7th of Jan.

Gregg Kellogg
Received on Wednesday, 18 December 2013 01:38:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:37 UTC