Re: json-ld progress, was Re: agenda 9 Oct telecon

On 10/09/2013 05:47 AM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 09, 2013 4:30 AM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
>> On 10/08/2013 11:45 AM, Gregg Kellogg wrote:
>>> We'll want to spend a little time on understanding the implications
>> of Concepts and Semantics not being in CR for JSON-LD to publish with a
>> normative reference to CR. JSON-LD is just about ready for a transition
>> to PR.
>> It's probably not worth trying to do.   JSON-LD should probably wait
>> until Concepts and Semantics are at least at CR.   Personally, I'd
>> prefer all RDF 1.1 documents go to PR together in December, so there's
>> one simple "RDF 1.1" thing for the AC and then in January for the
>> world, and so the references can all be clean and in-sync.
> Another two months of, well, just waiting? The JSON-LD syntax has been
> stable for (more than) six months now. A lot of people are waiting for this
> to become a REC...

Waiting in the sense of holding off on doing something?

>>> The CR version of JSON-LD has a normative reference to LC RDF11-
>> CONCEPTS of 23 July 2013, and informative references to 2004 RDF-
>> SCHEMA, 23 July RDF11-MT and 19 Feb TURTLE.
>>> The CR version of JSON-LD-API has a normative reference to 2004 RDF-
>> MT and an informative reference to the TURTLE CR of 19 Feb 2013.
>> Is there consensus within the JSON-LD task force how to handle the
>> Promises  dependency?  I haven't heard which of the plans we're going
>> with, and as I recall each had some risks and tasks associated with
>> it.     Some of them probably need RDF WG consensus as well.
> Google has already implemented Promised [1], Mozilla is actively working on
> it [2]. So relatively soon there should be something we can use (and
> hopefully reference).

Well, right, but there isn't now.  So how can json-ld-api proceed 
without referencing anything, even if it's not normative?

>   Weren't you trying to find out what the consequences
> of the various options we have would be from a W3C process perspective? Any
> news on that?

I was waiting to hear which path you guys wanted to take.   Sorry if 
that was a misunderstanding.

I think I still need to know:

    - what spec for promises will be used?

    - how exactly will the API be made non-normative -- how do we 
explain to users that there's a spec here they don't have to follow and 
might change?

Then the question for the Director will be whether that change fits 
within our At Risk warning.

Also, we can ask whether we can do Manu's thing of skipping the second 
AC review, although I think the odds of that are epsilon.

       -- Sandro

> Cheers,
> Markus
> [1]
> [2]
> --
> Markus Lanthaler
> @markuslanthaler

Received on Wednesday, 9 October 2013 13:31:11 UTC