JSON-LD-PR-Request

From RDF Working Group Wiki
Revision as of 07:52, 31 October 2013 by Msporny (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Introduction

This constitutes a request to advance JSON-LD 1.0 and JSON-LD 1.0 Processing Algorithms and API to Proposed Recommendations.

General

Documents

  1. JSON-LD 1.0 - A JSON-based Serialization for Linked Data
  2. JSON-LD 1.0 Processing Algorithms and API

Target Publication Date

5 November 2013

Decision to Request Advancement

RDF WG telecon of 23 October 2013:

RESOLVED: to request the Director to advance JSON-LD (http://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld/ http://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld-api/) to PR

Documentation of Changes

Documentation of all changes, both substantive and minor, to the JSON-LD 1.0 and JSON-LD 1.0 API technical reports since the first Last Call phase for both documents.

JSON-LD 1.0 Changes

Changes since the 10 September 2013 Candidate Recommendation:

  • Clarify context-sensitivity of @type
  • Use "post" in both the example and the explanation thereof in section 6.16 Data Indexing

JSON-LD 1.0 Processing Algorithms and API Changes

Changes since the 10 September 2013 Candidate Recommendation:

  • Fixed a bug that relabeled blank node identifiers used with reverse properties inconsistently when creating a node map.
  • Made the API non-normative given that Promises are still not properly specified.


Changes to WG Requirements for these documents

None of the WG requirements have changed for either document from the previous step.


Changes in Dependencies

Given that the API has been made non-normative there has been a change in the dependency between the RDF WG and the WHATWG based on the reference to the WHATWG DOM4 Promises specification and a change in the dependency between the RDF WG and the Web Applications WG based on the reference to the Web IDL specification


Evidence of Wide Review

The following people have reviewed the JSON-LD 1.0 specification:

  • Richard Cyganiak (Deri, RDF WG) (RDF Alignment)
  • Charles Greer (Marklogic, RDF WG) (complete)
  • Sandro Hawke (W3C, RDF WG) (complete)
  • David Booth (Independent, RDF WG) (complete)
  • Pat Hayes (IHMC, RDF WG) (complete)
  • Eric Prud'hommeaux (W3C, RDF WG) (complete)
  • Dan Brickley (Google) (partial)
  • Andy Seaborne (Apache Software Foundation, RDF WG) (complete)
  • Steve Speicher (IBM) (complete)
  • Pierre-Antoine Champin (RDF WG) (complete)
  • Peter Patel-Schneider (RDF WG) (RDF Alignment)
  • Marios Meimaris (Government Linked Data WG) (complete)
  • Paul Kuykendall (Argo, private implementer) (complete)
  • Robin Berjon (HTML WG) (complete)
  • David Rogers (BBC) (general language and reverse properties)
  • Manu Sporny (editor) (complete)
  • Gregg Kellogg (editor) (complete)
  • Markus Lanthaler (editor) (complete)
  • Dave Longley (author) (complete)
  • Niklas Lindström (author) (complete)

The following people have reviewed the JSON-LD 1.0 Processing Algorithms and API specification:

  • Peter Ansell (University of Queensland) (complete)
  • Paul Kuykendall (Argo, private implementer) (complete)
  • Zhe Wu (RDF WG) (complete)
  • Marios Meimaris (Government Linked Data WG) (complete)
  • Boris Zbarsky (Apple, WHATWG) (WebIDL API)
  • Tab Atkins Jr. (Google, WHATWG) (WebIDL API)
  • Anne van Kesteren (Mozilla, WHATWG) (WebIDL API)
  • Robin Berjon (W3C, HTML WG) (WebIDL API)
  • Markus Lanthaler (editor) (complete)
  • Dave Longley (author) (complete)
  • Gregg Kellogg (editor) (complete)
  • Manu Sporny (editor) (complete)


Formal Responses to All Issues Raised

There were approximately 276 issues from the authors, editors, and general public that were tracked, discussed and addressed before the Candidate Recommendation period for JSON-LD.

The following comments and responses were made during the Candidate Recommendation period for JSON-LD:

Issue Formal Response Changes Made Commenter Accepted Changes
ISSUE-153: Blank Nodes as properties in JSON-LD Response No, none required Yes
ISSUE-163: Determine if @type overloading is acceptable for JSON-LD 1.0 Response Yes, editorial Yes, with improvements
ISSUE-164: @reverse algorithm is buggy Response Yes, bug fix Yes
ISSUE-162: Attempt to converge markup mechanisms for OData and JSON-LD Response No, none required Yes
ISSUE-168: Use of "post" in example but "blogPost" in explanation Response Yes, editorial Not responded yet

Formal Objections

None.


Documentation of all changes

There have been no substantive changes since the latest Last Call for either documents. Diff-marked versions of the documents can be found here:


Requirement Fulfillment

All requirements for advancement have been fulfilled.

RDF WG telecon of 23 October 2013:

RESOLVED: We believe the json-ld and json-ld-api CR Exit Criteria have been met. We have more than two implements passing each test.

Implementations

There are currently eight fairly complete open source implementations of the JSON-LD specifications in browser-based Javascript, Node.js, two implementations in PHP, Python, Ruby, and Java. There is one closed source, partial implementation in C#. Six of these implementations are 100% conforming across all tests.

The implementation report can be found at http://json-ld.org/test-suite/reports/


Patent Disclosures

None