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

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

From: Markus Lanthaler <markus.lanthaler@gmx.net>
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 17:03:28 +0200
To: "'RDF WG'" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <009201cec500$b6a23a40$23e6aec0$@lanthaler@gmx.net>
On Wednesday, October 09, 2013 3:31 PM, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> On 10/09/2013 05:47 AM, Markus Lanthaler wrote:
> > 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?

Yeah, waiting to make investments, write software and build applications on
top of JSON-LD. 


> >> 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?

That's true but doesn't affect the syntax spec. I don't know if we could
keep the DOM reference while being in PR or not, if we could, it would
probably give us enough time to wait for ES6 which is supposed to
standardize them.


> >   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.

Oh I thought you try to find out the consequences so that we can make a
decision taking all consequences into consideration.


> I think I still need to know:
> 
>     - what spec for promises will be used?

Eventually ES6 I hope.


>     - 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?

We haven't decided yet to make it non-normative. If we do so, I think we
just drop the JSON-LD API Implementation product class and mark section 11.
The Application Programming Interface non-normative. That being said, I
don't think that's a good idea.


> 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.

That question relates to the reference to RDF Concepts which is normative
now (not sure why to be honest but I don't want to re-open the old
discussions we had). I just note that it has been informative in the 11
April 2013 LC.



--
Markus Lanthaler
@markuslanthaler
Received on Wednesday, 9 October 2013 15:04:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:02:17 UTC