15:36:45 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #json-ld
15:36:45 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2018/08/03-json-ld-irc
15:36:50 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #json-ld
15:36:54 <azaroth> zakim, this is json-ld
15:36:54 <Zakim> got it, azaroth
15:37:05 <azaroth> present+ Rob_Sanderson
15:37:12 <azaroth> chair: azaroth
15:37:23 <azaroth> regrets+ Adam_Soroka
15:37:37 <azaroth> zakim, make minutes public
15:37:37 <Zakim> I don't understand 'make minutes public', azaroth
15:37:49 <azaroth> rrsagent, make minutes public
15:37:49 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'make minutes public', azaroth.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
15:38:12 <azaroth> zakim, publish minutes
15:38:12 <Zakim> I don't understand 'publish minutes', azaroth
15:39:12 <azaroth> azaroth has changed the topic to: Agenda 2018-08-03: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-json-ld-wg/2018Aug/0000.html
15:39:18 <azaroth> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-json-ld-wg/2018Aug/0000.html
15:40:25 <ivan> Chair: azaroth
15:43:29 <dlongley> regrets+ Dave_Longley
15:44:10 <azaroth> dlongley - Can we assume a -1 on the @comment issue from you?
15:44:19 <dlongley> azaroth: yes
15:44:25 <dlongley> thanks, sorry can't attend today
15:44:27 <azaroth> or a -0.9 if everyone else is (suddenly, unexpectedly) +1
15:44:37 <azaroth> Thanks!
15:44:38 <dlongley> pretty much
15:45:00 <azaroth> And no worries about not being able to attend. Thanks for giving the regrets :)
15:54:42 <simonstey> simonstey has joined #json-ld
15:58:25 <gkellogg> present+ Gregg_Kellogg
15:59:12 <timCole> timCole has joined #json-ld
16:00:23 <workergnome> workergnome has joined #json-ld
16:00:28 <simonstey> present+
16:00:42 <workergnome> present+
16:02:39 <timCole> present+ Tim_Cole
16:03:10 <ivan> present+
16:04:07 <ivan> zakim, who is here?
16:04:07 <Zakim> Present: Rob_Sanderson, Gregg_Kellogg, simonstey, workergnome, Tim_Cole, ivan
16:04:09 <Zakim> On IRC I see workergnome, timCole, simonstey, Zakim, RRSAgent, azaroth, gkellogg, ivan, ChristopherA, bigbluehat, dlongley, fr33domlover, dlehn
16:04:28 <jeff_mixter> jeff_mixter has joined #json-ld
16:04:33 <ivan> scribenick: timCole
16:04:37 <jeff_mixter> present+
16:04:43 <azaroth> TOPIC: Approve minutes of last call
16:04:51 <azaroth> link: https://www.w3.org/2018/json-ld-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2018/2018-07-27-json-ld
16:04:58 <azaroth> +1
16:05:01 <gkellogg> +1
16:05:03 <ivan> +1
16:05:11 <simonstey> +1
16:05:12 <timCole> azaroth: Any changes to last week's minutes?
16:05:17 <timCole> +1
16:05:28 <workergnome> +1
16:05:45 <hsolbrig> hsolbrig has joined #json-ld
16:05:52 <azaroth> RESOLVED: Minutes of last call are approved (https://www.w3.org/2018/json-ld-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2018/2018-07-27-json-ld)
16:05:55 <ivan> resolved: last week's minutes accepted
16:06:01 <azaroth> scribenick: jeff_mixter
16:07:03 <hsolbrig> present+ hsolbrig
16:07:06 <azaroth> TOPIC: Announcements / Reminders
16:07:18 <simonstey> s/646 285 682//
16:07:49 <ivan> topic: announcements
16:08:07 <jeff_mixter> azaroth: are there any other announcements?
16:08:25 <ivan> topic: Issues
16:08:28 <jeff_mixter> ... no intros so issues
16:08:37 <jeff_mixter> ... first sub topic is issue 9
16:08:43 <azaroth> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-api/issues/9
16:09:00 <jeff_mixter> ... so this issue we proposed to close
16:10:15 <jeff_mixter> gkellogg: json-ld has syntax and the RDF algorithms process rest and nill and turn it back to quades. Issue was about JOSN-ld doc that has those URIs. Can compaction algorithm process that? Round trip through RDF
16:10:28 <jeff_mixter> azaroth: are there questions?
16:10:42 <jeff_mixter> ivan: clarification please
16:11:49 <jeff_mixter> gkellogg: you can serialize triples first without rest. part of the transformation from RDF to JSON-ld is a process that collects list nodes and makes sure they are correct and then turns into internal rep. The request is to do that without going through RDF
16:12:31 <jeff_mixter> ... if you have a blank node ID, can the compaction algorithm can do that work.
16:12:38 <jeff_mixter> azaroth: or RDF type
16:12:40 <workergnome> q+
16:12:45 <azaroth> ack workergnome
16:13:30 <jeff_mixter> workergnome: are we planning on using implicit knowledge in the RDF vocabulary. What we do and do not do?
16:13:49 <jeff_mixter> ... weird situation where we are in both worlds
16:14:41 <jeff_mixter> gkellog: different types of JSON-ld algorithms - transfer JOSN-ld to different forms of JSON-ld and ones that convert between RDF syntaxes
16:15:04 <azaroth> +1 to gkellogg's explanation
16:15:11 <simonstey> +q
16:15:13 <jeff_mixter> workergnome: thanks for the clarification
16:15:14 <azaroth> ack simonstey
16:15:49 <jeff_mixter> simonstey: either we go full in or do not. I would be against bringing in RDF interpretation. We are currently in middle ground
16:16:17 <jeff_mixter> ... greg explained it very well. for example RDF type and this is similar
16:16:23 <azaroth> q?
16:16:49 <jeff_mixter> azaroth: is everyone up to speed on the issue?
16:17:14 <jeff_mixter> ... does everyone understand why we propose to close it. Any objections to closing and that we will not do this?
16:17:35 <gkellogg> q+
16:17:45 <jeff_mixter> hsorlbrig: proposal to close and not do anything
16:17:50 <azaroth> ack gkellogg
16:17:58 <jeff_mixter> azaroth: proposal is to close and not do anything
16:18:23 <jeff_mixter> gkellogg: most of these issue appear to be from me but they are linked to the original proposals
16:18:34 <jeff_mixter> ... i vote to close and do nothing
16:18:53 <azaroth> PROPOSAL:  Close issue https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-api/issues/9 without any change (won't fix)
16:18:57 <ivan> +1
16:18:57 <azaroth> +1
16:18:57 <gkellogg> +1
16:18:58 <workergnome> +1
16:18:58 <simonstey> +1
16:18:59 <jeff_mixter> +1
16:19:06 <hsolbrig> +1
16:19:06 <timCole> +1
16:19:22 <azaroth> RESOLVED: Close issue https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-api/issues/9 without any change (won't fix)
16:19:44 <jeff_mixter> azaroth: I will go through and actually close the issue and link to the minutes
16:19:50 <ivan> subtopic: introducing `@dir` (https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-syntax/issues/11)
16:20:17 <jeff_mixter> ... introducing @dir
16:20:33 <jeff_mixter> ivan: i put in a comment last week that i favor closing it
16:21:42 <jeff_mixter> ... the problem that folks have is that of direction of the writing. There are some very confusing issue when writing for example Hebrew text. We can not properly represent that in JSON or JSON-ld. The real issue is that RDF can not represent that
16:22:37 <azaroth> q?
16:22:42 <jeff_mixter> ... thought we might be able to add it to JSON-ld to account for this. Similar to HTML. But there were some discussions in the original comment about extending things that are not in RDF - and decided to not do that
16:22:54 <timCole> +1
16:23:04 <jeff_mixter> azaroth: any questions? Do not do non-RDF stuff unless you need to
16:23:52 <jeff_mixter> tomCole: sorry wrong thing in chat. Just to be clear if a community has a property in RDF that is fine to include? It just does not allow you to do that in JSON-ld
16:24:05 <jeff_mixter> ivan: RDF does not have this facility
16:24:19 <jeff_mixter> timeCole: but we have modeled it in some RDF ontologies
16:24:31 <jeff_mixter> ivan: yes, this is only about literals
16:24:31 <gkellogg> You can always make an HTML literal that has direction included in the HTML.
16:24:54 <bigbluehat> present+
16:25:25 <azaroth> link to annotation model, with `textDirection` predicate: https://www.w3.org/TR/annotation-model/#external-web-resources
16:25:28 <jeff_mixter> ... by using the full power of the language tag - it may be possible to do this type of stuff
16:25:46 <azaroth> PROPOSAL: Close issue https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-syntax/issues/11 without any change (won't fix)
16:25:50 <gkellogg> +1
16:25:50 <jeff_mixter> ... do not do anything JSON-ld specific
16:25:50 <ivan> +1
16:25:50 <azaroth> +1
16:25:52 <timCole> +1
16:25:53 <jeff_mixter> +1
16:25:57 <hsolbrig> +1
16:26:00 <simonstey> +1
16:26:03 <bigbluehat> +1
16:26:25 <azaroth> RESOLVED: Close issue https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-syntax/issues/11 without any change (won't fix)
16:27:00 <ivan> subtopic: Allow @value, @language and @type simultaneously (https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-syntax/issues/13)
16:27:07 <azaroth> subtopic: @value, @language, @type - https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-syntax/issues/13
16:27:13 <jeff_mixter> azaroth: the next one is a bit of a defensive one. So I will explain it
16:27:31 <jeff_mixter> ... it is not possible in the RDF model to have language, type and value.
16:27:54 <jeff_mixter> ... the datatype with a language is a lang string.
16:28:31 <jeff_mixter> ... if we mess with direction we can also talk about this. Given the previous proposal, I propose we close this one.
16:28:47 <jeff_mixter> ... any questions or objections?
16:29:08 <azaroth> PROPOSAL: Close issue https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-syntax/issues/13 without any change (won't fix)
16:29:10 <azaroth> +1
16:29:10 <workergnome> +1
16:29:11 <hsolbrig> +1
16:29:14 <jeff_mixter> +1
16:29:14 <simonstey> +1
16:29:17 <ivan> +1
16:29:19 <timCole> +1
16:29:27 <bigbluehat> +1
16:29:29 <gkellogg> +1
16:29:31 <azaroth> RESOLVED: Close issue https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-syntax/issues/13 without any change (won't fix)
16:29:53 <azaroth> TOPIC: Other Issues
16:30:09 <jeff_mixter> azaroth: now larger questions that we started to discuss last week
16:30:37 <jeff_mixter> ... additional metadata in context. Not in instance data needed discussion about context and frames
16:30:54 <ivan> https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-syntax/issues/32
16:31:25 <jeff_mixter> ... there has been good discussion in GitHub. Thanks. By my count, there are 6 -1s, 2 +0s, and 1 +1. So we should close this one
16:31:38 <timCole> q+
16:31:39 <jeff_mixter> ... does that makes sense
16:31:42 <azaroth> ack timCole
16:31:46 <hsolbrig> q+
16:32:02 <jeff_mixter> timCole: makes sense but does a new issue need to be opened for human readable documentation
16:32:19 <jeff_mixter> ... might still be important but comment is an issue
16:32:21 <azaroth> ack hsolbrig
16:33:12 <jeff_mixter> hsolbrig: I learned a lot from the dialog. i would like to entertain the idea to open another issue. Come up with an escape character '@@' for example. would like more discussion
16:33:26 <jeff_mixter> azaroth: before we talk about more stuff
16:33:27 <azaroth> q?
16:33:47 <jeff_mixter> ... any more comments on the comments issue?
16:34:20 <azaroth> PROPOSAL: We will not add a specific @comment (or similar) keyword for providing comments in contexts or frames
16:34:23 <gkellogg> +1
16:34:23 <timCole> +1
16:34:24 <azaroth> +1
16:34:25 <hsolbrig> +1
16:34:26 <jeff_mixter> +1
16:34:34 <simonstey> +1
16:34:39 <jeff_mixter> gkellogg: will not fix but do not close
16:34:43 <bigbluehat> +1
16:35:14 <jeff_mixter> azaroth: we derived '@comment' from trying to understand what the initial issue creator wanted
16:35:45 <jeff_mixter> workergnome: this is not closing the issue on how to provide inline documentation or clarification.
16:35:57 <gkellogg> q+
16:36:14 <jeff_mixter> azaroth: yes just not in the form of comments. escaping would allow documentation. external linking could as well
16:37:14 <azaroth> RESOLVED: We will not add a specific @comment (or similar) keyword for providing comments in contexts or frames
16:37:16 <jeff_mixter> gkellogg: this links to a comment where poly-fills could be included. I am not an advocate of that but it is a proposal to consider
16:37:54 <jeff_mixter> azaroth: we resolved the proposal so the broader question is do we want to allow for some mech to inject additional metadata in context?
16:38:34 <workergnome> +1
16:38:43 <jeff_mixter> ... meta-context to allow for documentation. Or do we want a single keyword to distinguish this
16:38:48 <gkellogg> q+
16:38:51 <azaroth> ack gkellogg
16:38:54 <hsolbrig> q+
16:39:32 <workergnome> +q
16:39:33 <jeff_mixter> gkellogg: in many cases is when you have a term def and that term matches one in an external vocab def. there you need to follow your nose to find that def. Use linked data principles
16:39:34 <azaroth> +1 to follow your nose for term descriptions
16:39:38 <azaroth> ack hsolbrig
16:40:21 <jeff_mixter> hsolbrig: allow for some mech? which is interesting. there will be situations where people do this. It is a question of whether we approve or do not approve and if we do, then do it this way.
16:40:37 <azaroth> ack workergnome
16:40:40 <jeff_mixter> ... I am fine with a URI link but we need to say something
16:41:17 <azaroth> q?
16:41:24 <timCole> q+
16:41:27 <azaroth> ack timCole
16:41:28 <hsolbrig> +1 to workergnome's comment
16:41:29 <jeff_mixter> workergnome: very common case but there are more complicated issues where magic is needed and it is not useable by anyone else. want to explain why I did that weird thing
16:41:58 <jeff_mixter> timCole: there is a balancing act. linked data principles would allow you to do that but would be harder than in-line comments.
16:42:18 <azaroth> +1 to Tim's observation about level of work
16:42:32 <jeff_mixter> +1 to Tim's level of work also
16:42:45 <jeff_mixter> q+
16:42:47 <bigbluehat> q+ to note that there's a multi-language nightmare lurking within this discussion...
16:42:48 <azaroth> ack jeff_mixter
16:42:54 <azaroth> scribenick: azaroth
16:43:36 <azaroth> jeff_mixter: I acknowledge the need to do weird stuff in contexts, I do think that round-tripping is very important.  If it can't be represented elsewhere, okay, but if it's for processing then it's important.  It's not about the graph data, it's about the specific JSON-LD document.
16:44:02 <azaroth> ... I would support Tim's proposal. I think we would see a bunch of weird stuff about processing the document rather htan the graph
16:44:09 <azaroth> scribenick: jeff_mixter
16:44:10 <azaroth> q?
16:44:13 <azaroth> ack bigbluehat
16:44:13 <Zakim> bigbluehat, you wanted to note that there's a multi-language nightmare lurking within this discussion...
16:44:24 <hsolbrig> q+
16:44:31 <azaroth> +1 to bigbluehat
16:44:41 <jeff_mixter> bigbluehat: any human focused text that we introduce will run us around of multi-language issues
16:45:06 <azaroth> ack hsolbrig
16:45:12 <jeff_mixter> ... prefer to point people elsewhere for human readable stuff
16:45:49 <azaroth> q?
16:45:51 <jeff_mixter> hsolbrig: one thing that makes machine processing comments is the caveat that we clarify no round-trip-ability of comments
16:46:29 <hsolbrig> hsolbrig: that prevents the use of machine processing comments
16:46:33 <gkellogg> q+
16:46:36 <azaroth> ack gkellogg
16:46:40 <jeff_mixter> azaroth: to summarize - there is reasonable support to reference to external resource and only harold and david is keen on in-line
16:47:05 <jeff_mixter> gkellogg: we are looking at using YAML/YAML-ld for this type of issue
16:47:05 <bigbluehat> +1 to using YAML for what YAML's good at (and JSON isn't)
16:48:00 <jeff_mixter> azaroth: moving forward - would someone write up an external reference approach and one do the inline approach? we can then close 32 and discuss these new ones separately
16:48:06 <jeff_mixter> ... who will do it.
16:48:09 <bigbluehat> q+ to ask about the reference approach
16:48:13 <azaroth> ack bigbluehat
16:48:13 <Zakim> bigbluehat, you wanted to ask about the reference approach
16:48:33 <bigbluehat> difference between http://schema.org/Person
16:48:35 <bigbluehat> https://www.w3.org/ns/oa#Annotation
16:49:09 <jeff_mixter> bigbluehat: difference between W3C Anno and Schema.org
16:49:45 <jeff_mixter> ... URL's resolve to HTML?
16:50:15 <jeff_mixter> azaroth: we are talking about a keyword that points to a URI that when resolved they see a human readable content.
16:50:44 <jeff_mixter> bigbluehat: additional term
16:50:51 <jeff_mixter> +1 to content-neg
16:51:22 <jeff_mixter> ... do not want to route away from what Schema.org does
16:51:59 <jeff_mixter> azaroth: content-negotiation on the context URI is something we had not talked about. We could propose this
16:52:02 <ivan> q+
16:52:05 <azaroth> ack ivan
16:52:34 <jeff_mixter> ivan: content-negotiation is hard. 80% of users can not does this. I like the concept but it is hard
16:52:51 <gkellogg> q+
16:52:54 <azaroth> ack gkellogg
16:53:26 <jeff_mixter> gkellogg: one thing to consider - if a context resolves to an HTML document. The processor could extract imbedded JSON-ld for processing
16:53:38 <jeff_mixter> ivan: I like that
16:53:50 <jeff_mixter> azaroth: 4 proposals
16:53:53 <jeff_mixter> ... inline
16:53:57 <jeff_mixter> ... refernece in context
16:54:02 <jeff_mixter> ... content ngeogtiation
16:54:13 <jeff_mixter> ... extract the context from the html doc that has the context
16:54:39 <jeff_mixter> ... create an issue in the syntax repo and we can compare and contrast over the week
16:54:59 <jeff_mixter> ... can not do that in the next 5 minutes
16:56:31 <azaroth> q?
16:56:31 <jeff_mixter> ... herold is inline, tim is doing reference, benjamin is doing content and benjamin is doing extraction from html. Separate issues
16:57:15 <jeff_mixter> ... not sufficient time to look at other issues. Let us quickly try issue 36.
16:57:16 <azaroth> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-syntax/issues/36
16:57:28 <jeff_mixter> ... whether or not we should support lists of lists
16:57:35 <azaroth> +1
16:57:39 <gkellogg> +1
16:57:43 <jeff_mixter> ... regardless of how the algorithm supports it, who would support it.
16:57:46 <hsolbrig> +1
16:57:46 <timCole> +0
16:57:49 <jeff_mixter> +0
16:57:51 <bigbluehat> +1 (because GeoJSON)
16:57:55 <ivan> +0.5
16:58:05 <simonstey> +2 (1 on behalf of Axel)
16:58:30 <jeff_mixter> jeff_mixter: do not have an understanding of use case to have opinion
16:58:47 <jeff_mixter> timCole: seen use cases but has no strong opinion
16:59:30 <jeff_mixter> gkellogg: in compact form, you would have lists of arrays.
17:00:12 <jeff_mixter> gkellogg: there is code in the algorithm to look for this pattern. So it would be a quick win
17:00:28 <azaroth> PROPOSAL: Close https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-syntax/issues/32 (@comment) in favor of the four coming proposals
17:00:31 <jeff_mixter> azaroth: proposal to close 32
17:00:31 <azaroth> +1
17:00:32 <ivan> +1
17:00:32 <timCole> +1
17:00:33 <jeff_mixter> +1
17:00:34 <hsolbrig> +1
17:00:34 <simonstey> +1
17:00:34 <gkellogg> +1
17:00:35 <bigbluehat> +1
17:00:50 <azaroth> RESOLVED: Close https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-syntax/issues/32 (@comment) in favor of the four coming proposals
17:01:21 <jeff_mixter> azaroth: thanks to everyone talk to you next week. Do not forget to comment on the issues
17:01:23 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:01:23 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/08/03-json-ld-minutes.html ivan
17:01:23 <ivan> zakim, bye
17:01:23 <ivan> rrsagent, bye
17:01:23 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees have been Rob_Sanderson, Gregg_Kellogg, simonstey, workergnome, Tim_Cole, ivan, jeff_mixter, hsolbrig, bigbluehat
17:01:23 <Zakim> Zakim has left #json-ld
17:01:41 <ivan> rrsagent, set draft public
17:01:41 <RRSAgent> I'm logging. I don't understand 'set draft public', ivan.  Try /msg RRSAgent help
17:01:47 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:01:47 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/08/03-json-ld-minutes.html ivan
17:01:47 <ivan> zakim, bye
17:01:47 <ivan> rrsagent, bye
17:03:14 <ivan> rrsagent, set log public
17:03:23 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:03:23 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/08/03-json-ld-minutes.html ivan