15:34:18 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #json-ld
15:34:18 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2018/09/07-json-ld-irc
15:34:19 <ivan> rrsagent, set log public
15:34:19 <ivan> Meeting: JSON-LD Working Group Telco
15:34:19 <ivan> Chair: azaroth42
15:34:19 <ivan> Date: 2018-09-07
15:34:19 <ivan> Regrets+ tcole
15:34:19 <ivan> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-json-ld-wg/2018Sep/0006.html
15:34:20 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2018-09-07: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-json-ld-wg/2018Sep/0006.html
15:36:09 <azaroth> present+ Rob_Sanderson
15:36:54 <azaroth> Regrets+ Tim_Cole
15:48:09 <ajs6f> present+
15:50:22 <workergnome> workergnome has joined #json-ld
15:56:44 <gkellogg> present+ Gregg_Kellogg
15:57:30 <bigbluehat> present+ Benjamin_Young
15:57:41 <jeff_mixter> jeff_mixter has joined #json-ld
15:58:24 <workergnome> present+
16:00:04 <jeff_mixter> present+
16:00:38 <azaroth> TOPIC: Scribe Selection
16:00:46 <azaroth> scribenick: jeff_mixter
16:01:11 <azaroth> TOPIC: Approve minutes of previous call
16:01:19 <jeff_mixter> azaroth: approve minutes of previous call
16:01:23 <azaroth> PROPOSAL: Approve minutes of previous call: https://www.w3.org/2018/json-ld-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2018/2018-08-31-json-ld
16:01:25 <azaroth> +1
16:01:27 <gkellogg> +1
16:01:27 <ajs6f> +1
16:01:30 <jeff_mixter> +1
16:01:40 <bigbluehat> I+1
16:01:43 <bigbluehat> +1
16:01:48 <bigbluehat> s/I+1//
16:01:53 <azaroth> RESOLVED: Approve minutes of previous call: https://www.w3.org/2018/json-ld-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2018/2018-08-31-json-ld
16:02:02 <azaroth> TOPIC: Announcements / Reminders
16:02:15 <jeff_mixter> azaroth: TPAC reminder
16:02:47 <gkellogg> q+
16:02:56 <hsolbrig> hsolbrig has joined #json-ld
16:02:57 <jeff_mixter> ... Open call for consensus - have until next  week to agree or disagree
16:03:00 <azaroth> ack gkellogg
16:03:01 <bigbluehat> q+
16:03:12 <simonstey> simonstey has joined #json-ld
16:03:14 <hsolbrig> present+ hsolbrig
16:03:34 <ivan> present+
16:03:36 <jeff_mixter> gkellogg: the parts of the proposal sit in frozen repos - can we go ahead and merge those pull requests?
16:03:57 <jeff_mixter> azaroth: yep we should do that and will do that
16:04:14 <bigbluehat> q?
16:04:17 <azaroth> q?
16:04:18 <azaroth> ack bigbluehat
16:04:54 <jeff_mixter> bigbluehat: if folks are new to W3C it might be helpful to go over first working draft stuff
16:04:57 <dlehn> present+ David_Lehn
16:05:25 <jeff_mixter> jeff_mixter: yep that would be helpful
16:05:59 <simonstey> present+
16:06:02 <jeff_mixter> ivan: it is putting stake in the ground. Not binding but gives a general idea of where the group is going
16:06:39 <bigbluehat> q+ to share some links
16:06:58 <jeff_mixter> ... this case is special because we already have full-blown working draft. typically the first draft is very sparse and includes mostly section headings and what the group will do
16:07:00 <bigbluehat> q-
16:07:10 <bigbluehat> W3C Process doc section on FPWD https://www.w3.org/2018/Process-20180201/#first-wd
16:07:55 <jeff_mixter> ... hopefully things are all in order for publication next Tuesday
16:08:24 <ivan> q+
16:08:36 <jeff_mixter> azaroth: first public working draft has more requirements then later drafts due to initial overhead
16:08:41 <azaroth> ack ivan
16:09:51 <jeff_mixter> ivan: it will be easier than the annotation work stuff hopefully. Has sent out a green light request and then send a note to the webmaster to pick up the document and publish it. Once this is done, we can set up an automatic procedure for updating
16:10:52 <gkellogg> q+
16:10:57 <azaroth> ack gkellogg
16:11:03 <jeff_mixter> ... some groups no longer have editors version and any change is published directly to the master. But the generation process is pretty much automatic. This works up to candidate req.
16:11:40 <jeff_mixter> gkellogg: the barrier to continuous publication is related to the automatic configuration settings
16:11:54 <jeff_mixter> ivan: in the initial phase things are not so strict
16:11:57 <azaroth> q?
16:12:21 <jeff_mixter> ivan: once we get to more formal steps we will get back to more strict ways
16:12:56 <azaroth> TOPIC: Issues
16:13:03 <azaroth> SUBTOPIC: JSON Literals
16:13:05 <jeff_mixter> ... just waiting for a response
16:13:11 <azaroth> Chair: bigbluehat
16:13:19 <bigbluehat> https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-syntax/issues/4
16:14:26 <bigbluehat> https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-syntax/issues/4#issuecomment-418857569
16:14:46 <jeff_mixter> bigbluehat: first issue is number 4. there had been an agreement in past meeting to close but it was brought back up. Further discussion on GitHub and there is now a proposal from Rob to defer. Want to open it back up for further discussion
16:14:53 <bigbluehat> PROPOSAL: Defer work on JSON literals until specific use cases have been described
16:14:56 <gkellogg> q+
16:15:00 <ajs6f> q+
16:15:01 <bigbluehat> ack gkellogg
16:15:05 <azaroth> q+
16:16:39 <jeff_mixter> gkellogg: chirs weber brought up issue of canonical order of the literal. there is a draft out for JSON canonicalization but it is a burden until algorithms there to do it. This issue is related to the RDF JSON canonicalization. we have this issue with HTML and XML literals.
16:16:50 <jeff_mixter> ... we are laking a compelling use case for this
16:17:03 <bigbluehat> ack ajs6f
16:17:07 <jeff_mixter> ... part was to support geo json but we added list of list to support that
16:17:31 <jeff_mixter> ajs6f: to clarify, geo json has no use case for this current issue?
16:17:37 <workergnome> q+
16:18:03 <azaroth> Related to #7 -- https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-syntax/issues/7
16:18:11 <jeff_mixter> gkellogg: list of list allows us to represent geo json but some of the proponents of geo json want to see us go further
16:18:46 <ivan> q+
16:19:18 <jeff_mixter> ajs6f: happy with the proposal and to see conversation to move forward. We owe it to geo json to see that their issues are represented in our work
16:19:36 <bigbluehat> ack azaroth
16:19:54 <bigbluehat> q+
16:20:24 <jeff_mixter> azaroth: while i supported the issue, given the lack of use cases, I support the deferral.
16:20:28 <azaroth> q?
16:20:29 <bigbluehat> ack workergnome
16:21:35 <jeff_mixter> workergnome: I glad it is a deferral and not a close. but when you need to semanticalize and de-semanticalize json it can be a pain.
16:21:36 <bigbluehat> ack ivan
16:22:57 <jeff_mixter> ivan: no strong opinion about literals in json but do want to make sure we do not close it for the wrong reason. understand the canonicalization issue but it is not our responsibility. should we have a more broad RDF canonicalization group.
16:23:08 <azaroth> +1 to ivan.
16:23:12 <ajs6f> +1
16:23:35 <bigbluehat> ack bigbluehat
16:23:39 <dlehn> i'll just note, that similar to empty terms, raw json would be very helpful for obfuscated json-ld
16:23:52 <bigbluehat> csvw:JSON
16:24:33 <jeff_mixter> bigbluehat: did more digging and there is another community that minted a json encoding type. the csd working group has this. The json is not native json but rather just a string but has way to say, this is a json string.
16:24:59 <azaroth> q?
16:25:16 <jeff_mixter> ... need to make sure we have a compelling use case
16:25:25 <bigbluehat> PROPOSAL: Defer work on JSON literals until specific use cases have been described
16:25:30 <azaroth> +1
16:25:30 <jeff_mixter> ... does anyone want changes?
16:25:32 <workergnome> +1
16:25:32 <jeff_mixter> +1
16:25:33 <ivan> +1
16:25:33 <ajs6f> +1
16:25:33 <bigbluehat> +1
16:25:35 <hsolbrig> +1
16:25:35 <gkellogg> +1
16:25:36 <simonstey> +1
16:25:43 <bigbluehat> RESOLUTION: Defer work on JSON literals until specific use cases have been described
16:26:06 <dlehn> +1
16:26:21 <bigbluehat> SUBTOPIC: Data Transformation
16:26:32 <bigbluehat> https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-syntax/issues/7
16:26:44 <azaroth> q+
16:26:47 <jeff_mixter> bigbluehat: next topic is data transformation. two proposals in the email
16:27:00 <bigbluehat> PROPOSAL 1: Close, won't fix, as JSON-LD contexts are not the right vehicle for data transformation
16:27:15 <bigbluehat> PROPOSAL 2: Defer until after a discussion at TPAC
16:27:26 <bigbluehat> ack azaroth
16:28:29 <jeff_mixter> azaroth: 7 came from the geo json folks. We need to address 7 but if we close it, we will not prevent geo json ld we are just not enabling geo json ld from adding stuff not in geo json
16:28:33 <bigbluehat> The GeoJSON-LD community https://github.com/geojson/geojson-ld
16:28:39 <bigbluehat> https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-syntax/issues/15
16:28:43 <bigbluehat> https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-syntax/issues/64
16:28:57 <jeff_mixter> ... if we go down this route there will be a snowball affect of requests
16:29:23 <gkellogg> q+
16:29:28 <jeff_mixter> ... still in favor of closing this
16:29:34 <ivan> +10000 to azaroth
16:29:40 <jeff_mixter> ... defer to TPAC
16:29:42 <bigbluehat> ack gkellogg
16:29:44 <ajs6f> q+
16:30:16 <jeff_mixter> gkellogg: to play devils advocate, the original mission statement was to allow devs to use idiomatic json and have it be interpreted as linked data
16:30:42 <jeff_mixter> ... follows this pattern and does something that RDF does not handle very well
16:30:50 <ivan> q+
16:31:05 <azaroth> Definitely useful, no argument there!
16:31:33 <jeff_mixter> ... gets into a can of worms, could use some templating stuff to get around this
16:32:19 <jeff_mixter> ... there is also the json-ld transformation library that might do this but this working group does not have the time to take this up
16:32:22 <bigbluehat> ack ajs6f
16:32:56 <azaroth> +1 to principle of least surprise
16:33:08 <bigbluehat> q+
16:33:08 <azaroth> q+ to mention security
16:33:10 <workergnome> +1 to ajs6f
16:33:44 <gkellogg> As bigbluehat noticed, it’s “JSON-LD Macros”, not Transformation. https://github.com/antoniogarrote/json-ld-macros
16:33:50 <jeff_mixter> ajs6f: in support of at least deferring these this is an issue of surprise. When contexts can do this type of things, it can cause very surprising effects in the output RDF. Also to play devil's advcate, if we close these all together, we are saying this is transformation and that you should not do it in the context but in different way
16:34:06 <jeff_mixter> ... but we have no recommendations to do that
16:34:55 <jeff_mixter> ... we need to point people who need this where to go to solve this issue
16:35:01 <bigbluehat> ack ivan
16:35:28 <workergnome> It's probably worth mentioning jq (https://stedolan.github.io/jq/), which is a tool that is very good at this sort of JSON transformations
16:35:32 <jeff_mixter> ivan: we are not doing jsonld 2.0
16:35:40 <bigbluehat> ack bigbluehat
16:35:51 <jeff_mixter> ... this belongs in 2.0 not 1.x
16:36:46 <jeff_mixter> bigbluehat: jsonld is sort of a transformation layer and what we need to address is the concerns of each camp - Tree JSON folks and Graph RDF folks.
16:37:44 <workergnome> q+
16:38:16 <jeff_mixter> ... people will do this and if we do not give them a way to express it where will they go?
16:38:26 <bigbluehat> ack azaroth
16:38:26 <Zakim> azaroth, you wanted to mention security
16:38:33 <jeff_mixter> ... in favor of proposal 2 - defer
16:39:40 <jeff_mixter> azaroth: the other schema.org folks are concerned about security - context being dereferenced on the fly and if the context manipulate the graph, that could introduce major issue - phishing for example
16:39:58 <ivan> q+
16:40:01 <gkellogg> q+
16:40:12 <ajs6f> q+
16:40:22 <jeff_mixter> ... could be pushed back to community group and brought to TPAC
16:40:33 <azaroth> q?
16:40:50 <bigbluehat> ack workergnome
16:40:58 <bigbluehat> +1 for incubation in the CG
16:42:02 <jeff_mixter> workergnome: things that are mentioning about applying types are more like inferencing but is not really the same as data manipulation done in the context.
16:42:04 <bigbluehat> ack ivan
16:42:45 <jeff_mixter> ivan: we have 2 years to complete this work. This is a major piece of work and would proposal that we should not do it in this working group. push it to 2.0
16:42:46 <bigbluehat> ack gkellogg
16:43:45 <ivan> +1 to gkellogg
16:43:49 <azaroth> +1 to close out of scope for 1.1 and ask the CG to work on it
16:43:50 <jeff_mixter> gkellogg: maintaining things in defer state does not do anyone a service because it leave the option there. Makes more sense to claim out of scope and close - push it to another group or the community group. like to keep open issue list tight
16:43:57 <bigbluehat> ack ajs6f
16:44:51 <jeff_mixter> ajs6f: this will come up again when we talk about framing. You can introduce new data when framing.
16:45:04 <bigbluehat> PROPOSAL: Defer for exploration to the Community Group for future consideration in JSON-LD 2.0 (or elsewhere); Close current WG issue as wontfix with reference new open issue at the CG.
16:45:13 <azaroth> +1
16:45:15 <gkellogg> +1
16:45:15 <ivan> +1
16:45:18 <jeff_mixter> +1
16:45:19 <bigbluehat> +1
16:45:19 <workergnome> +1
16:45:20 <hsolbrig> +1
16:45:20 <ajs6f> +1
16:45:23 <simonstey> +1
16:45:53 <jeff_mixter> bigbluehat: just covers issue 7
16:46:23 <jeff_mixter> gkellogg: need a different proposal for each issue
16:46:39 <jeff_mixter> bigbluehat: there concerns are not lump-able?
16:47:00 <jeff_mixter> gkellogg: other issue are subtly different
16:47:25 <bigbluehat> RESOLUTION: Defer #7 for exploration to the Community Group for future consideration in JSON-LD 2.0 (or elsewhere); Close current WG issue #7 as wontfix with reference new open issue at the CG.
16:47:28 <ivan> +1
16:47:31 <jeff_mixter> +1
16:47:32 <bigbluehat> +1
16:47:36 <hsolbrig> +1
16:47:39 <ajs6f> +1
16:47:53 <bigbluehat> https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-syntax/issues/15
16:48:03 <bigbluehat> Alternative support for list-like structures such as schema:ListItem
16:48:53 <jeff_mixter> bigbluehat: now 15, do we want this to go to the CG?
16:49:01 <jeff_mixter> gkellogg: close and won't fix
16:49:15 <jeff_mixter> ivan: we can not force the CG to do anything
16:49:26 <jeff_mixter> bigbluehat: right just asking them to look at it and maybe talk about it
16:49:40 <gkellogg> q+
16:49:45 <jeff_mixter> bigbluehat: defer 15
16:49:56 <bigbluehat> ack gkellogg
16:50:01 <jeff_mixter> azaroth: close this out and ask the CG to take up
16:50:21 <bigbluehat> q+
16:50:38 <jeff_mixter> gkellogg: not even go that far, they had the authority to shut the door. All we can do is close the issue.
16:50:49 <bigbluehat> ack bigbluehat
16:50:56 <jeff_mixter> ...  out of scope and you can see the minutes to explain why
16:51:14 <jeff_mixter> bigbluehat: Rob as Dan to follow up and comment
16:51:42 <bigbluehat> PROPOSAL: Close #15 as wontfix.
16:51:45 <azaroth> +1
16:51:45 <ivan> +1
16:51:45 <gkellogg> +1
16:51:47 <jeff_mixter> +1
16:51:47 <bigbluehat> +1
16:51:49 <hsolbrig> +1
16:52:00 <ajs6f> +!
16:52:03 <ajs6f> +1
16:52:12 <simonstey> +1
16:52:16 <bigbluehat> RESOLUTION: Close #15 as wontfix.
16:52:23 <bigbluehat> https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-syntax/issues/64#issuecomment-418726271
16:52:36 <bigbluehat> s/https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-syntax/issues/64#issuecomment-418726271/https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-syntax/issues/64
16:52:43 <jeff_mixter> azaroth: my proposal is to close and not fix 64
16:53:20 <jeff_mixter> ivan: specific application areas can do this for their needs
16:53:26 <bigbluehat> q?
16:53:30 <azaroth> + all the numbers to Ivan
16:53:36 <jeff_mixter> ivan: direct consequence of issue 7
16:53:46 <gkellogg> q+
16:54:00 <bigbluehat> ack gkellogg
16:54:01 <jeff_mixter> azaroth: not in our scope to say how people should process RDF
16:54:16 <jeff_mixter> gkellogg: this is in the transformation area
16:54:36 <azaroth> +1
16:54:43 <jeff_mixter> ivan: N3 could do this
16:54:53 <azaroth> +1 to ajs6f
16:55:00 <bigbluehat> PROPOSAL: Close #64 as wontfix and reference the CG issue created for the transformation topic (see resolution of #7).
16:55:03 <azaroth> +1
16:55:04 <ajs6f> +1
16:55:09 <gkellogg> +1
16:55:09 <bigbluehat> +1
16:55:11 <ivan> +1
16:55:11 <hsolbrig> +1
16:55:14 <jeff_mixter> +1
16:55:20 <simonstey> +1
16:55:32 <jeff_mixter> ajs6f: more appropriate for others to deal with transformation
16:55:50 <bigbluehat> https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-syntax/issues/37
16:56:00 <bigbluehat> RESOLUTION: Close #64 as wontfix and reference the CG issue created for the transformation topic (see resolution of #7).
16:56:27 <bigbluehat> PROPOSAL: Add an editorial warning to the 1.1 specification that the use of blank nodes as predicates is possible, but that it is deprecated and recommended for removal in a hypothetical JSON-LD 2.0
16:56:39 <jeff_mixter> azaroth: add an editorial to spec to say you can use bnodes as predicates but please do not do so
16:56:56 <bigbluehat> q+
16:56:58 <jeff_mixter> ivan: we can look at the terms for what we use to descirbe it
16:57:21 <jeff_mixter> ... maybe something like deprecated
16:57:44 <gkellogg> q+
16:57:47 <bigbluehat> ack bigbluehat
16:58:01 <bigbluehat> ack gkellogg
16:58:05 <jeff_mixter> ... this issue comes up if you use OWL inferencing stuff
16:58:48 <jeff_mixter> gkellogg: this does not have to do with OWL type stuff but rather being able to transform JSON into JSON-ld without having to deal with ontologies and such
16:59:05 <azaroth> I think it's obsolete: https://github.com/w3c/w3process/issues/36#issuecomment-317019111
16:59:20 <jeff_mixter> ... obsolete, deprecated and mark test cases that use this as 1.0 only
16:59:41 <jeff_mixter> ... needs to be on the road to elimination
17:00:42 <bigbluehat> PROPOSAL: Mark the use of blank nodes for properties as obsolete/deprecated and mark issue as "Editorial"
17:00:44 <azaroth> An Obsolete Recommendation is a specification that W3C does not believe has sufficient market relevance to continue recommending that the community implement it, but does not consider that there are fundamental problems that require the Recommendation be Rescinded. It is possible for an Obsolete Recommendation to receive sufficient market uptake that W3C decides to restore it to Recommendation status. An Obsolete Recommendation has the same s
17:00:44 <azaroth> tatus as a W3C Recommendation with regards to W3C Royalty-Free IPR licenses granted under the Patent Policy.
17:00:55 <azaroth> +1
17:01:06 <gkellogg> +1
17:01:07 <ajs6f> +1
17:01:08 <bigbluehat> +0
17:01:10 <jeff_mixter> +1
17:01:11 <ivan> =1
17:01:15 <simonstey> +1
17:02:00 <azaroth> bigbluehat: If Manu has new evidence, we can change our mind
17:02:16 <bigbluehat> azaroth: sounds good.
17:02:26 <azaroth> But at this stage I think some significant evidence of use is what is needed
17:02:28 <bigbluehat> RESOLUTION: Mark the use of blank nodes for properties as obsolete/deprecated and mark issue as "Editorial"
17:03:11 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:03:11 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/09/07-json-ld-minutes.html ivan
17:03:11 <ivan> zakim, bye
17:03:11 <ivan> rrsagent, bye
17:03:11 <RRSAgent> I see no action items
17:03:11 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees have been Rob_Sanderson, ajs6f, Gregg_Kellogg, Benjamin_Young, workergnome, jeff_mixter, hsolbrig, ivan, David_Lehn, simonstey, !
17:03:11 <Zakim> Zakim has left #json-ld