16:53:25 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #json-ld
16:53:25 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2018/11/09-json-ld-irc
16:53:29 <azaroth> zakim, this is json-ld
16:53:29 <Zakim> got it, azaroth
16:53:33 <azaroth> chair: azaroth
16:53:43 <azaroth> date: 2018-11-09
16:53:49 <azaroth> regrets+ Tim_Cole
16:53:59 <azaroth> regrets+ Simon_Steyskal
16:54:15 <bigbluehat> chair: bigbluehat
16:54:44 <azaroth> azaroth has changed the topic to: Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-json-ld-wg/2018Nov/0006.html
16:54:51 <azaroth> Chair: azaroth, bigbluehat
16:56:12 <azaroth> rrsagent: set log public
16:56:21 <azaroth> Meeting: JSON-LD Working Group Telco
16:56:36 <azaroth> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-json-ld-wg/2018Nov/0006.html
16:56:45 <azaroth> Present+ Rob_Sanderson
16:56:58 <azaroth> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:56:58 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/11/09-json-ld-minutes.html azaroth
16:57:24 <azaroth> rrsagent: set log public
16:59:00 <gkellogg> present+ Gregg_Kellogg
16:59:59 <ivan> present+
17:00:13 <bigbluehat> present+
17:00:51 <workergnome> workergnome has joined #json-ld
17:01:54 <jeff_mixter> jeff_mixter has joined #json-ld
17:02:30 <jeff_mixter> present+
17:03:19 <workergnome> workergnome present+
17:03:36 <ivan> present+ workergnome
17:07:24 <bigbluehat> Scribe Selection time!
17:07:31 <azaroth> TOPIC: Scribe selection
17:07:42 <bigbluehat> s/Scribe Selection time!//
17:08:25 <azaroth> scribenick: jeff_mixter
17:08:26 <bigbluehat> scribenick: jeff_mixter
17:08:40 <bigbluehat> Topic: Approve minutes of previous calls
17:08:40 <azaroth> TOPIC: Minutes approval
17:08:49 <bigbluehat> https://www.w3.org/2018/json-ld-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2018/2018-10-12-json-ld
17:08:53 <bigbluehat> TPAC day 1: https://www.w3.org/2018/json-ld-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2018/2018-10-25-json-ld
17:09:00 <bigbluehat> TPAC day 2: https://www.w3.org/2018/json-ld-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2018/2018-10-26-json-ld
17:09:09 <azaroth> PROPOSAL: Approve minutes of previous discussions (call, plus TPAC)
17:09:15 <gkellogg> +1
17:09:16 <ivan> +1
17:09:17 <bigbluehat> +1
17:09:21 <azaroth> +1
17:09:27 <workergnome> +1
17:09:43 <jeff_mixter> +1 to the first from 10-12
17:09:57 <azaroth> RESOLVED: Approve minutes of previous discussions (call, plus TPAC)
17:10:24 <azaroth> TOPIC: Announcements
17:11:18 <jeff_mixter> bigbluehat: announcements welcome Pierre. We can do intros next week or when he he joins today. Herald is back.
17:11:34 <jeff_mixter> ... need to figure out next face to face meeting
17:12:05 <jeff_mixter> ivan: the month that works out the best is February and possible in the middle of the month
17:12:29 <jeff_mixter> ... need to work around the Workshop in March in Berlin.
17:12:48 <jeff_mixter> ... figure it out over email
17:13:02 <jeff_mixter> ... possibly Washington
17:15:19 <jeff_mixter> ... we should try to get it on the books sooner rather than later for hotel and flights
17:15:39 <jeff_mixter> bigbluehat: we could also do NY if need be
17:17:26 <azaroth> TOPIC: Issues
17:17:56 <jeff_mixter> azaroth: two issue that came up as being particularly interesting.
17:18:22 <jeff_mixter> ... we should focus on them and try to come to some consensus
17:18:28 <azaroth> link: https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-syntax/issues/77
17:18:33 <ivan> Subtopic: issue 77
17:18:34 <azaroth> SUBTOPIC: @type / @datatype
17:19:19 <jeff_mixter> azaroth: related to issue 33 and the feeling at the time was that the overloading of @type was confusing
17:19:45 <jeff_mixter> ... we proposed to add a new way in 1.1 to distinguish a datatype
17:20:08 <bigbluehat> s/issue 33/issue 31
17:20:19 <jeff_mixter> ... that would clear up some of the confusion
17:21:11 <jeff_mixter> ... decided to use @datatype but need to discuss more
17:21:14 <dmitriz> dmitriz has joined #json-ld
17:21:32 <gkellogg> q+
17:21:34 <jeff_mixter> ... ivan and I are on the pro side of @datatype. Ben is against it.
17:21:51 <azaroth> ack gkellogg
17:21:55 <pchampin> q+
17:22:36 <jeff_mixter> gkellogg: I have mixed opinions. If we had thought about this originally it would have made sense but we did not. Now we need to consider backwards compatibility
17:22:38 <jeff_mixter> +q
17:23:18 <jeff_mixter> ... creating an alias of datatype to @datatype might help
17:23:47 <azaroth> Example today:  {"@type": "foaf:Person", "foaf:age": {"@value": "42", "@type": "xsd:integer"}}
17:23:48 <jeff_mixter> ... we would lose the @dataype alias with expansion
17:24:07 <azaroth> Proposed additional synonymous construct: {"@type": "foaf:Person", "foaf:age": {"@value": "42", "@datatype": "xsd:integer"}}
17:24:20 <ivan> q+
17:24:32 <azaroth> q?
17:24:34 <azaroth> ack pchampin
17:24:42 <ivan> q-
17:24:48 <jeff_mixter> ... just keep in mind that it will disappear with any transformation
17:25:40 <jeff_mixter> pchampin: I assumed that @type usage had been talked about in the 1.0 dev. Wanted to hear why the decision was made to not split the hair.
17:26:47 <gkellogg> https://json-ld.org/minutes/2011-10-18/#topic-2
17:27:07 <jeff_mixter> gkellogg: there was an explosion of keywords back in the day and we determined that some were redundant or very similar. we did have an @datatype and decided to merge them back in 2011.
17:27:40 <jeff_mixter> ... this was decided prior to the close alignment to RDF
17:28:00 <bigbluehat> q+
17:28:03 <azaroth> q?
17:28:05 <azaroth> ack jeff_mixter
17:28:44 <gkellogg> https://json-ld.org/minutes/2011-12-13/#resolution-5
17:28:51 <azaroth> q?
17:28:55 <azaroth> ack bigbluehat
17:29:58 <gkellogg> From Manu - “what convinced me most was Markus' argument that we should make it as simple as possible without losing functionality”
17:30:04 <workergnome> q+
17:30:59 <jeff_mixter> bigbluehat: which camps are we making it easier or harder for. it is rare to see this type of thing in the actual data. hearing what Gregg would have to do to make it works seems a bit too much to ask. The type coercion is valid but might be a fringe use case
17:31:16 <jeff_mixter> ... concerned about the ramifications of doing this
17:31:19 <gkellogg> https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/31
17:31:21 <azaroth> q+ to note different expansion/compaction contexts
17:31:26 <azaroth> ack workergnome
17:32:21 <jeff_mixter> workergnome: when trying to learn JSON-ld and learning that @type means 2 different things. Long time to wrap my head around using the wrong keyword with different meaning.
17:32:21 <azaroth> q?
17:32:23 <azaroth> ack azaroth
17:32:23 <Zakim> azaroth, you wanted to note different expansion/compaction contexts
17:32:26 <bigbluehat> q+
17:32:43 <gkellogg> From lanthaler - “I don't think we can argue that we reduce the amount of invalid data that is created by having two different keywords. I'd argue that we increase the problem because people might put @datatype in the wrong place vs. @type.”
17:33:23 <jeff_mixter> azaroth: I had the same experience. In the IIIF world we had 5 editors and we were trying to use type coercion on classes but we found that it did not work
17:33:24 <ivan> q?
17:33:42 <jeff_mixter> ... also confuses a vendor we are working with
17:33:46 <ivan> q+
17:34:11 <jeff_mixter> ... no evidence that it is more confusing to separate them
17:34:45 <azaroth> q?
17:34:47 <azaroth> ack bigbluehat
17:34:48 <dlehn> present+ David_Lehn
17:34:58 <jeff_mixter> ... you could compact and expand to create valid JSON-ld. round-tripping seems like not an issue.
17:35:29 <pchampin> q+
17:35:44 <jeff_mixter> bigbluehat: I agree that @type is confusing. What I am concerned about is if adding @datatype makes it any more clear
17:36:10 <jeff_mixter> ... very robust explanation would help
17:36:32 <jeff_mixter> ... this could create a new set of confusion
17:37:09 <azaroth> ack ivan
17:37:42 <jeff_mixter> ivan: one thing we need to remind ourselves is that our only requirement is that a valid 1.0 is valid 1.1
17:37:54 <jeff_mixter> ... round tripping in not really an issue
17:38:33 <azaroth> q+ to make a proposal unless there are other thoughts
17:38:52 <jeff_mixter> ... what happens in 1.1 with processing the data.
17:38:53 <gkellogg> q+
17:38:59 <azaroth> q-
17:39:01 <azaroth> q+
17:39:43 <jeff_mixter> ... pure JSON users will likely have issue in general. Diff between classes and literals are already somewhat confusing.
17:40:03 <azaroth> ack pchampin
17:40:07 <jeff_mixter> ... separating @type and @datatype makes it clear that there is a distinction /me +1
17:41:21 <azaroth> ack gkellogg
17:41:21 <jeff_mixter> pchampin: could we say @type and @datatype and indicate that @datatype could be an @type
17:42:26 <jeff_mixter> gkellogg: we could make the move to use @datatype and allow for @type for backwards compatibility. The issue is the processor, which is currently either 1.0 or 1.1 mode.
17:42:39 <pchampin> s/could we say @type and @datatype and indicate that @datatype could be an @type/could we specify that @type is used for resources, and @datatype is used for literals, but that @type can be used as an alias for @datatype/
17:43:01 <bigbluehat> q+
17:43:48 <azaroth> ack bigbluehat
17:43:49 <jeff_mixter> ... do we change the default processor to 1.1 and require a way to switch to change to 1.0
17:45:10 <jeff_mixter> bigbluehat: +1 to what Gregg was saying. The versioning is a problem outside of the problem of what is better solution. There is a risk whenever you change things.
17:45:34 <jeff_mixter> ... what is the impact on consumers of JSON-ld when the consumers are consuming pure JSON not Graph data
17:47:23 <jeff_mixter> azaroth: sounds like there are 4 or 5 folks that are in favor and 1 against and 1 neutral (leaning against). The arguments against are significant (the 1.0 vs 1.1 processing issue)
17:48:30 <gkellogg> q+
17:48:50 <jeff_mixter> ... If Ben and Gregg come up with a clear/complete definition of @type and a further rewording around type coercion. Then we can read them over, assess the definition and see if the text of the spec is clear enough to explain what the difference is and how to implement it
17:49:03 <gkellogg> https://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld11/#syntax-tokens-and-keywords
17:49:21 <jeff_mixter> ... we can then decide if the documentation is sufficient or if we need to further consider splitting them
17:49:25 <bigbluehat> q+
17:49:30 <bigbluehat> ack azaroth
17:49:31 <bigbluehat> ack gkellogg
17:49:45 <jeff_mixter> gkellogg: is the current wording not clear enough? what are you looking for?
17:50:24 <jeff_mixter> ... could we raise issue about the current documentation about what is not clear enough
17:51:20 <jeff_mixter> azaroth: nodes are meaningless to people with RDF hats on.
17:51:57 <jeff_mixter> gkellogg: are you looking for the current docs to be improved or for something new
17:52:21 <ivan> q+
17:52:23 <jeff_mixter> azaroth: 1.7 is fine. 4.2.1 needs more clarity
17:52:44 <jeff_mixter> ... it is not a technical issue it is a learning/implementation issue
17:52:54 <jeff_mixter> ... 4.2 is the problem
17:53:33 <jeff_mixter> ... splitting out @type into how to use for Classes and for Literals
17:53:44 <workergnome> q+
17:54:19 <jeff_mixter> gkellogg: what about further definition of other keywords
17:54:44 <jeff_mixter> azaroth: a section in 9 about keywords and gives full definition.
17:54:58 <azaroth> q?
17:54:59 <azaroth> ack bigbluehat
17:55:54 <jeff_mixter> bigbluehat: more than happy to help rewording. confusion between Value instead of Literal.
17:56:16 <azaroth> ack ivan
17:56:45 <azaroth> +1 to Ivan
17:56:56 <jeff_mixter> ivan: we should make is more explicit that there is very clear distinction between classes and literals in JSON-ld
17:57:58 <azaroth> zakim, close queue
17:57:58 <Zakim> ok, azaroth, the speaker queue is closed
17:58:12 <azaroth> ack workergnome
17:58:42 <jeff_mixter> workergnome: need a JSON person primer
17:59:05 <azaroth> PROPOSAL: bigbluehat & gkellogg to come up with rewording for 4.2, and new section for 9 for keywords, for review as to whether this will solve confusion without technical change
17:59:11 <azaroth> +1
17:59:14 <jeff_mixter> +1
17:59:16 <ivan> +1
17:59:17 <bigbluehat> +1 (noting it might include more revising elsewhere)
17:59:20 <gkellogg> +1
18:00:17 <workergnome> +1
18:00:46 <pchampin> +1
18:00:46 <azaroth> RESOLVED: bigbluehat & gkellogg to come up with rewording for 4.2, and new section for 9 for keywords, for review as to whether this will solve confusion without technical change
18:01:50 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
18:01:50 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2018/11/09-json-ld-minutes.html ivan