Re: JSON-LD blocked to PR by RDF Concepts

On 10/08/2013 10:58 PM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> I guess our emails crossed.

Yeah, sorry, didn't check my RDF WG folder before sending this email.

> Are you only proceeding with 'json-ld' not 'json-ld-api'?

Both documents would proceed at the same time.

> Or if you mean both, then what's the plan re Promises?

To make the API non-normative and update the document when we can put in
a normative reference... which will be months/years from now. In the
mean time, we already have JavaScript implementations that use Promises.

>> 1. Make the JSON-LD data model and the reference to RDF Concepts 
>> non-normative, go to REC, and make the reference normative when
>> RDF Concepts goes to REC. This seems like the best option.
> 
> You want to do two more publications and a second AC review 3 months
>  later just to make this tiny change?

An AC review isn't required for a 2nd Edition of a spec, right?
Especially for a tiny change such as this. We'll point it out in the
SoTD, like we did for HTML5+RDFa 1.1. Something to this effect:

RDF Concepts is currently in the Last Call phase and so references to it
cannot be normative. This means that the JSON-LD data model and
relationship to rdf sections are not normative. RDF Concepts 1.1, as it
is employed by JSON-LD, is considered stable enough to be implementable
in a production environment. Once the RDF Concepts 1.1 document goes to
REC, all references to RDF Concepts 1.1, as well as the data model and
relationship to RDF sections, will become normative.

The AC reps will see that text when they vote to approve the document as
a REC. When RDF 1.1 Concepts becomes a REC, we just go in and make those
changes. No need for an AC review.

>> 2. Delay JSON-LD proceeding to REC until RDF Concepts becomes a 
>> REC. This would be a terrible outcome.
> 
> What specific harm will be done by delaying json-ld by two months?

Adoption will be delayed yet again. It's also a distraction to the
members of the JSON-LD group that would like to move on to other things
like RDF Graph Normalization and JSON-LD Framing. It'll put into
question whether or not we should be updating the test suite or we
should delay updating the test suite until the REC is done. If we do
update the test suite, do we need to go through another CR/LC? Many
people in the group would just like to ship JSON-LD 1.0 and move on,
delaying it by 2-3 months because RDF Concepts /might/ change (which it
probably won't at this point) seem silly.

At this point, it's really the W3C process that seems silly. We should
be able to publish the document as a REC, note the changes that will
happen in the 2nd Edition in 2-3 months, and be done with it without
much AC fanfare. Is there any way we can do this?

-- manu

-- 
Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny)
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Meritora - Web payments commercial launch
http://blog.meritora.com/launch/

Received on Wednesday, 9 October 2013 04:39:31 UTC