15:30:09 RRSAgent has joined #json-ld 15:30:09 logging to https://www.w3.org/2018/08/31-json-ld-irc 15:30:14 zakim, this is json-ld 15:30:14 got it, azaroth 15:30:23 present+ Rob_Sanderson 15:30:26 chair: Rob_Sanderson 15:30:34 regrets+ bigbluehat 15:43:28 ajs6f has joined #json-ld 15:52:01 ivan has joined #json-ld 15:52:26 rrsagent, set log public 15:52:26 Meeting: JSON-LD Working Group Telco 15:52:26 Chair: azaroth42 15:52:26 Date: 2018-08-31 15:52:26 Regrets+ bigbluehat 15:52:26 Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-json-ld-wg/2018Aug/0018.html 15:52:27 ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2018-08-31: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-json-ld-wg/2018Aug/0018.html 15:59:05 simonstey has joined #json-ld 15:59:38 workergnome has joined #json-ld 15:59:39 jeff_mixter has joined #json-ld 15:59:47 present+ 16:00:20 present+ Gregg_Kellogg 16:00:47 present+ 16:01:17 present+ 16:01:18 present+ jeff_mixter 16:01:32 timCole has joined #json-ld 16:02:20 present+ timCole 16:02:21 present+ dlehn 16:03:17 regrets+ dlongley 16:03:25 scribenick: simonstey 16:03:37 TOPIC: Approve minutes of last call 16:03:54 PROPOSAL: Approve minutes of last call - https://www.w3.org/2018/json-ld-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2018/2018-08-24-json-ld 16:03:58 +1 16:03:58 +1 16:04:03 +1 16:04:12 +1 16:04:20 +1 16:04:22 hsolbrig has joined #json-ld 16:04:23 +1 16:04:23 RESOLVED: Approve minutes of last call - https://www.w3.org/2018/json-ld-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2018/2018-08-24-json-ld 16:04:33 TOPIC: Announcements 16:04:40 +1 16:05:02 project link: https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/4 16:05:13 azaroth: tpac coming up; we also have made a project for the issues we are working on 16:05:38 ... helps tracking issues over all 3 repos we are working on 16:06:20 ... decide on topics that are probably better discussed during the F2F meeting 16:06:43 ... if there's anything else we could configure on that regard, please speak up 16:06:55 q+ 16:06:55 ... any other announcements or reminders? 16:06:58 ack ivan 16:07:00 present+ hsolbrig 16:07:08 present+ 16:07:17 present+ Tim_Cole 16:07:51 ivan: a minor thing, if we have anything to discuss with other working groups we should do that 16:07:57 ACTION: Rob to create a meta issue for cross-WG sessions at TPAC 16:08:16 ... publication working group meets on monday/tuesday 16:08:28 ... you are more than welcome to join 16:09:05 topic: FPWDs 16:09:36 azaroth: according to our charter, we should have published FPWDs 16:09:50 q+ 16:09:58 ... our documents are way more mature than required for FPWD 16:09:58 ack ivan 16:10:41 ivan: publishing FPWD needs more administrative actions 16:10:58 ... reason being that IPR starts with the FPWD 16:11:29 ... publishing FPWD can be automated 16:11:55 ... we need a formal vote for publishing each of the 3 documents 16:12:07 json-ld11, json-ld11-api, json0-ld11-framing 16:12:12 ... this includes also deciding on their respective short names 16:12:19 q? 16:13:00 snapshots https://rawgit.com/w3c/json-ld-syntax/fpwd/publication-snapshots/FPWD/Overview.html, https://rawgit.com/w3c/json-ld-api/fpwd/publication-snapshots/FPWD/Overview.html, https://rawgit.com/w3c/json-ld-framing/fpwd/publication-snapshots/FPWD/Overview.html 16:13:06 ivan: we'll vote here, it's not binding yet, but will become so in a week from now 16:13:13 ... unless someone objects to it 16:13:29 ... publications happen on tue/fri 16:14:04 ... on the 11th is the earliest date we could publish 16:14:18 azaroth: any questions? 16:14:23 PROPOSAL: Approve the current snapshots for publication as FPWD for September 11th 16:15:05 gkellogg: ivan has suggested some changes, so they would not be exactly the same shapshots 16:15:30 PROPOSAL: Approve for publication as FPWD for September 11th the documents as json-ld11, json-ld11-api and json-ld11-framing 16:15:39 +1 16:15:41 dlehn: there are some smaller formatting issues I noticed 16:15:51 +1 16:15:52 ... we strive for excellence! 16:15:59 +1 16:16:00 +1 16:16:00 ivan: meh 16:16:04 +1 16:16:08 +1 16:16:44 gkellogg: having issues in the public documents, sometimes cause some issues 16:16:52 ... broken links and such 16:17:43 +1 16:17:45 +1 16:17:47 +1 16:17:55 ivan: when you incorporate github issues with respec, you can define your own text instead of taking the one from github 16:17:56 +1 16:18:11 RESOLVED: Approve for publication as FPWD for September 11th the documents as json-ld11, json-ld11-api and json-ld11-framing 16:18:28 ivan: you ping me when the documents are frozen, gkellogg ? 16:18:38 ... you'll generate static HTML, right? 16:18:42 gkellogg: yes 16:18:58 topic: Issues 16:19:05 ivan: once you've pinged me, I'll start the process 16:19:14 subtopic: Ordering of keys, https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-api/issues/8 16:19:29 link: https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-api/issues/8 16:19:45 azaroth: we discussed over the week, proposal is in the agenda 16:20:03 q+ 16:20:07 ack gkellogg 16:20:40 gkellogg: the reason for having the ordering, was for the tests being then easier to evaluate 16:21:21 gkellogg: we should put something in the test readme, describing this kind of result checking 16:21:50 azaroth: does this also apply to scoping by type? 16:22:16 PROPOSAL: Remove the "ordered lexicographically by key" from the serialization algorithm and allow implementations to handle this as they see fit 16:22:20 +1 16:22:22 +1 16:22:23 +1 16:22:24 +1 16:22:25 +1 16:22:30 +1 16:22:31 +1 16:22:32 +1 16:22:34 q+ 16:22:36 +1 16:22:45 present+ hsolbrig 16:22:58 present+ 16:23:05 dlehn: has anyone tried doing this change to see if anything breaks? 16:23:44 gkellogg: yeah, for compacting e.g., where you only have to sort the compacted output 16:24:03 ... I haven't implemented the more complex result checking though 16:24:56 gkellogg: current algorithms should be able to deal with that 16:25:23 RESOLVED: Remove the "ordered lexicographically by key" from the serialization algorithm and allow implementations to handle this as they see fit 16:25:34 +1 16:25:43 ... ordering was actually one of the things that makes processing expensive 16:26:11 subtopic: support JSON literal values - https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-syntax/issues/4 16:26:32 link: https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-syntax/issues/4 16:27:01 q+ 16:27:16 q+ 16:27:18 ack dlehn 16:27:20 ack ivan 16:27:48 ivan: defining a datatype for RDF would make the whole thing complete 16:27:58 ... we could do that I think 16:28:34 ... but postponing it to a future RDF WG is maybe not a good thing (it doesn't exist yet) 16:28:54 azaroth: in the social web WG, they created a new LDP property 16:29:41 ... the annotation WG doesn't want to get the same thing done to them (as they said in a disclaimer) 16:29:59 ivan: creating a new datatype isn't the same thing as changing the ontology 16:30:19 ... we are not required to put it in the RDF namespace 16:30:58 ack gkellogg 16:31:00 azaroth: the question is more "where should it live" 16:31:27 gkellogg: I certainly support adding a JSON datatype to RDF 16:31:30 q+ 16:31:48 ... should be whitespace normalized 16:32:07 comment - https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-syntax/issues/4#issuecomment-416757994 16:33:02 ... having implemented this, in theory this should work 16:33:18 ... there might be some problematic corner cases wrt. to framing 16:33:42 ack ivan 16:34:01 ... storing an empty array as json object in a frame for example 16:34:27 https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-html 16:34:33 ivan: we can have a separate section in our own document where we define this 16:34:42 q+ 16:35:05 ack gkellogg 16:35:08 ivan: you can see from the HTML example, it's a relative simple thing 16:35:19 gkellogg: I was referring to the actual namespace documents 16:35:25 ivan: which ones? 16:35:39 gkellogg: if we decide to put it in the RDF namespace 16:35:53 ivan: that's something we could do, because they are not in TR 16:35:57 q? 16:36:20 ... the important thing is that it's really a short thing, not a big deal 16:36:29 PROPOSAL: Define a @json keyword, initially mapped to jsonld:json, for use with @type to indicate the @value is a json literal value 16:36:43 +1 16:36:45 +1 16:36:58 +1 16:36:58 +1 16:36:59 +1 16:37:03 gkellogg: this does have utility outside of GeoJSON 16:37:06 +1 16:37:28 ... it does put json literals on the same level as xml/html ones 16:37:32 +1 16:37:33 +1 16:37:36 +1 16:37:36 should it be caps jsonld:JSON to align with those rdf:HTML etc names? 16:37:50 +1 16:37:57 RESOLVED: Define a @json keyword, initially mapped to jsonld:json, for use with @type to indicate the @value is a json literal value 16:38:29 subtopic: compaction issues, #3 and #6 16:38:35 https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-api/issues/3 16:38:47 https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-api/issues/6 16:38:59 azaroth: closely related 16:39:54 ... issue 6 is exactly the same but for @id 16:40:26 ... use case is consistency 16:41:10 ... some things require arrays having a consistent datatype 16:41:39 q+ 16:42:13 gkellogg: 16:42:16 ack gkellogg 16:42:20 [azaroth explaining the issues] 16:44:28 q? 16:45:16 gkellogg: there was a concern, we may need an extra keyword 16:45:22 ... to be able to handle this case 16:46:20 q+ 16:46:52 Explanation: In order to allow consistent JSON output, compaction should allow for values and resources to be compacted to a JSON object with a single key of @id or @value 16:47:04 ivan: it would be very difficult to give an understandable story of what the keywords are 16:47:18 ... as we are already overloading them quite a bit 16:47:28 +1 16:47:35 q+ 16:47:38 ack ivan 16:47:55 ... they make sense on an incremental basis, but looking at them as a whole things may become a bit blurry 16:48:23 ack azaroth 16:48:35 ... here we are reusing keywords for transforming json-ld from one format to another 16:48:35 +1 to ivan's concern 16:48:48 Similar situation as the "data type coercion" issue 16:49:16 q+ 16:49:17 ... as of now, I would like to leave this issue open 16:49:19 ack gkellogg 16:49:30 ... maybe discussing it at TPAC in more detail 16:50:53 gkellogg: conceptually this (i.e., type none) would mean that the type of those values don't really have a meaning 16:51:23 ... I understand the concern about overloading 16:51:32 q+ 16:52:06 ack workergnome 16:52:17 ivan: on a micro level those changes are fine, but I would like to leave it open 16:52:51 workergnome: understanding what keywords have an effect on JSON output is non-trivial 16:53:20 ... mapping algorithms to how input maps to output is not really straightforward 16:53:24 PROPOSAL: Accept the use case for #3 and #6, and continue to discuss the solution 16:53:33 +1 16:53:33 +1 16:53:34 +1 16:53:36 +1 16:53:38 +1 16:53:38 +1 16:53:41 +1 16:53:48 +1 16:54:03 RESOLVED: Accept the use case for #3 and #6, and continue to discuss the solution 16:54:18 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-syntax/issues/15 16:54:35 link: https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-syntax/issues/15 16:54:41 azaroth: list-like structures for other ontologies 16:55:09 gkellogg: something like this was contemplated in 1.0 too 16:55:54 ... the only way of creating an ordered list of items in json-ld is basically to leverage rdf list 16:57:27 q? 16:57:41 ... adding additional means for creating ordered lists, e.g., by utilizing the ordered list ontology 16:57:50 q+ 16:58:11 ack ivan 16:58:37 ... hoping that danbri starts to show up at some point 16:59:18 It also led to: https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-syntax/issues/17 17:00:34 ivan: we have to see if this issue is still as high on the list for schema.org as it used to be 17:00:53 azaroth: it seems like a lot of work 17:01:03 https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/595#issuecomment-368258625 17:01:22 q+ 17:01:45 ack ajs6f 17:01:57 ivan: we should be extremely careful in opening this can of worms 17:02:46 ... sounds more like 2.0 than 1.1 17:02:55 \me +1 to Adam. 17:03:00 +1! 17:03:12 +1 to adam 17:04:44 rrsagent, draft minutes 17:04:44 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/08/31-json-ld-minutes.html ivan 17:04:45 zakim, bye 17:04:45 rrsagent, bye 17:04:45 I see 1 open action item saved in https://www.w3.org/2018/08/31-json-ld-actions.rdf : 17:04:45 ACTION: Rob to create a meta issue for cross-WG sessions at TPAC [1] 17:04:45 recorded in https://www.w3.org/2018/08/31-json-ld-irc#T16-07-57 17:04:45 leaving. As of this point the attendees have been Rob_Sanderson, workergnome, Gregg_Kellogg, ivan, jeff_mixter, timCole, dlehn, hsolbrig, simonstey, Tim_Cole, ajs6f 17:04:45 Zakim has left #json-ld