JSON-LD Working Group Telco — Minutes

Date: 2019-09-06

See also the Agenda and the IRC Log

Attendees

Present: Rob Sanderson, Ivan Herman, Dave Longley, Ruben Taelman, Benjamin Young, Gregg Kellogg, Adam Soroka, Pierre-Antoine Champin, David I. Lehn, Jeff Mixter

Regrets: Ivan Herman

Guests:

Chair: Rob Sanderson, Benjamin Young

Scribe(s): Adam Soroka

Content:

1. Approve minutes of previous call

Benjamin Young: See Minutes of Aug. 30

Dave Longley: +1

Ivan Herman: +1

Rob Sanderson: +1

Adam Soroka: +1

Ruben Taelman: +0

Gregg Kellogg: +1

Pierre-Antoine Champin: +1

Resolution #1: last week’s minutes minutes approved

2. Announcements / Reminders

2.1. TPAC following week

Benjamin Young: no call next week because of TPAC

Benjamin Young: See Fukuoka page, link to agenda

2.2. Others?

Pierre-Antoine Champin: we have a funded WoT project starting in February
… might be some JSON-LD interest
… I was wondering if we still want a note that mentions this
… might some people in this project that might contribute to that

Ivan Herman: just a note, not a rec
… no problem publishing that if we can get it in before closing the WG

Benjamin Young: still some time to do that

Ivan Herman: how much time we have to do this depends on how we manage time generally
… we have until June or July and a note can be published at the very end
… we’re in pretty good shape re: testing and impl
… we may need less time to complete CR stage
… we could publish early and close the group early

Gregg Kellogg: thinking about the YAML note, we automated the transformations
… CBOR might or might not be
… as easy

Ivan Herman: not likely to be as easy

Gregg Kellogg: you can dump JSON into CBOR, altho it does many other things
… other than number representation I’m not sure there is much of a barrier
… more important is the transform CBOR -> JSON
… if there are people with experience at CBOR who want to help, we should keep that open
… unless/until we learn that we don’t have enough time

Benjamin Young: and of course we have the Best Practices doc

Pierre-Antoine Champin: okay, I’ll ask those folks and see if anyone is into it
… before TPAC

3. Horizontal Review Updates

Rob Sanderson: See relevant issues in our repo

Rob Sanderson: we’re in good shape
… we have alerted Accessibility folks
… we’ve done their checklist
… ty bigbluehat
… I’ve told Privacy that we think we are in good shape
… they responded with thanks and no further issues
… ivan, what’s the process from here?

Ivan Herman: tag it as done and when we write a request to go to CR we can point to it

Rob Sanderson: DONE
… we did the Security questionnaire in June
… I pinged them a few times with no response
… and latterly I told them we consider it done, but if they have any concerns to raise them with us at TPAC
… I heard nothing back
… I say we call this done

Ivan Herman: that works, and the same goes for Internationalization

Rob Sanderson: we are good, even if we only got one official sign off

Ivan Herman: what about Accessibility

Benjamin Young: I’ve heard no problems from them
… I bet someone will catch us in the hallway at TPAC and tell us that we are fine

Ivan Herman: we’re probably low on the priorities

Rob Sanderson: if Avneesh can work with it that seems like as good an Accessibility review as we get

Ivan Herman: no he looks only at the accessibility of the docs themselves
… different question
… that’s not the same as true review of the rec itself and problems that might arise from its use

Rob Sanderson: finally we have the short names’ issue

Ivan Herman: it turns out we can do what we wanted
… when we publish the rec from that point on JSON-LD with no qualifier will point at the latest rec
… you can also do JSON-LD/latest and there are some other combinations, look at the issue for details
… but our most important point is that LSON-LD itself will point at the latest

Rob Sanderson: I put together some nice stats for Coralie
… she said they were great
… and added them to the Members’ update for September

Ivan Herman: I also spoke with her and she was happy for the info and put it various Members’ comms
… I think she might put together a slide for Jeff

Gregg Kellogg: too many TPACs have gone by that would make you think that the only thing W3C does is HTML

Rob Sanderson: at the last one the Wed was disheartening
… we can turn that around

4. Issues

4.1. Framing blank nodes

Rob Sanderson: last discussion we agreed that we couldn’t solve it on a call
… so gkellog and dlongley went off to look at it

Gregg Kellogg: we found a problem in a framing test where @container : @graph got mangled in re-expansion
… a bug in the compaction algo
… if the value is an array, it puts them in an @included block
… i tried [s solution] but it turned out not to be defined well enough

Rob Sanderson: all of that is solved and merged?

Gregg Kellogg: yep

Gregg Kellogg: See API PR #146

Gregg Kellogg: See API PR #145

Proposed resolution: Close framing #27 as not being the issue, and the real issues being addressed is api #143, solved by api PRs # 145 and #146 (Rob Sanderson)

Rob Sanderson: +1

Benjamin Young: +1

Dave Longley: +1

Gregg Kellogg: +1

Ivan Herman: +1

Adam Soroka: +1

Pierre-Antoine Champin: +1

Ruben Taelman: +1

Rob Sanderson: RESOLVE: Close framing #27 as not being the issue, and the real issues being addressed is api #143, solved by api PRs # 145 and #146

Proposed resolution: Close api #143 as resolved by api PR #145 and #146 (Rob Sanderson)

Rob Sanderson: +1

Ivan Herman: +1

Ruben Taelman: +1

Gregg Kellogg: +1

Adam Soroka: +1

Pierre-Antoine Champin: +1

Benjamin Young: +1

Dave Longley: +1

Resolution #2: Close api #143 as resolved by api PR #145 and #146

4.2. we are out of issues!

Rob Sanderson: See Open Syntax issues

Rob Sanderson: now looking at syntax issues
… we have two that are really styling
… and two that we have already deferred

Rob Sanderson: See Open API issues

Rob Sanderson: for API we have two open non-deferred issues

Rob Sanderson: See Open Framing issues

Rob Sanderson: for framing we have issue 7 and two that we deferred to future versions

Rob Sanderson: See Generic & Meta issues

Rob Sanderson: in the WG metalist of issues
… just some editorial updates on bigbluehat and myself

Rob Sanderson: there are the horizontal reviews and short names issue and actions that we talked through earlier

Ivan Herman: what guiding principles document?

Rob Sanderson: the one from the very beginning
… we never adding things like horizontal review to those guiding principles, but it’s a bit late

Ivan Herman: I see something “updating json-ld.org” on bigbluehat

Benjamin Young: I will work on that before TR — it’s in the CG

Pierre-Antoine Champin: there is unrecorded issue about the fact that the specs for 1.1 refer to 1.0 docs via the short name JSON-LD, without qualifier

Gregg Kellogg: I think I fixed that

Pierre-Antoine Champin: perhaps I wasn’t seeing the latest versions

Gregg Kellogg: yes, I used the timestamped URI
… what Respec does for JSON-LD uses the unversioned URI
… which would have had that problem when we updated
… and our internal links already use precise URIs

Pierre-Antoine Champin: okay, all good!

Gregg Kellogg: Respec does keep breaking and Marcos said he would fix these things
… once those are done we can publish another heartbeat draft
… that might it for us

Ivan Herman: it might be good to look for a “preview CR” request, to see what we need for that

Action #1: send to -chairs example CR request (Ivan Herman)

Rob Sanderson: after which we can look at the example and work with it
… other issues?
… I mean any new technical issues
… if not, we’re done with technical issues and we’ll spend TPAC carousing wildly
… we’ll request CR after TPAC
… we need to get people to get onto implementation
… and submitting reports thereof
… that al conform to some part of the work
… and for all features there are at least 2 impls that do that
… which is not to say that any given impl must do all features– that’s not true

5. Implementation Report

Rob Sanderson: See Draft implementation report

Gregg Kellogg: I have software to collate the reports that get sent in and generate this file
… this includes all the tests that were included
… at the beginning there is a discussion of requirements for submissions
… submissions are found in a directory which is processed by the software
… producing an HTML output with a column for each impl and each test the result obtained
… there are details like test options that we don’t find here
… it is many pages

David I. Lehn: add a browser stress test and add syntax highlighting for all the tests input/output

Ivan Herman: I have seen this type of product from gkellogg before and I think it’s perfect
… i understand that the tests in this report cover all of JSON-LD< including 1.0 stuff

Gregg Kellogg: we have 1.0 stuff, 1.1 stuff, and both
… we don’t include 1.0 stuff, just stuff that is relevant for both
… we test the entire behavior

Ivan Herman: is it worth indicating what’s new? the stuff that is new in 1.1?

Rob Sanderson: seems valuable

Gregg Kellogg: the data is there
… we could annotate the tests as appropriate

Ivan Herman: in the column for test you could add a symbol to indicate something new for 1.1

Rob Sanderson: for test defns, which are quite long, could we make it a separate HTML file?
… rather than including it in-line

Gregg Kellogg: or we could create HTML test manifests and link to them
… in json-ld.org we had some PHP that listed out the tests
… we could do something template-driven to the same purpose
… then we update the report so that the test links point at the right places int eh test manifestos

David I. Lehn: should we not put the version numbers of the various libraries on their?
… support changes with time.

Gregg Kellogg: if you look in “What to Submit” we could put a slot for version and then use that in the “Description of test subject”

David I. Lehn: did the URI format change much?

Gregg Kellogg: nope, same thing

Action #2: add software version DOAP property to report template (Gregg Kellogg)

David I. Lehn: what does it do if you skip tests?

Gregg Kellogg: I think it says something like “Untested”

Action #3: look at taking out test definitions and replacing with links to test manifests (Gregg Kellogg)

Gregg Kellogg: there is Pass, Fail and some other statuses
… . doesn’t matter than much what the current level of conformance but we could grease the wheel

David I. Lehn: python code hasn’t yet been updated

Rob Sanderson: it currently asks people to submit Turtle — could we make that JSON-LD

Gregg Kellogg: sure, we could
… but devs seem happy with Turtle
… but I would work with JSON-LD if someone gives it to me

6. TPAC face to face arrangements

Adam Soroka: [shared discussion of travel arrangements]

Rob Sanderson: has anyone asked for Observer status?

Ivan Herman: not that I saw, and you would have been notified

Gregg Kellogg: should we arrange a Wed update for people?

Rob Sanderson: given where we are at, that seems reasonable

Rob Sanderson: See Session ideas for the Wednesday

Action #4: add session idea for https://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC/2019/SessionIdeas (Gregg Kellogg)

Ivan Herman: wait I was wrong!

Ivan Herman: See Registration list for the F2F

Ivan Herman: there are quite a number of requestors
… experience shows that people do come up but rarely stay around
… bigbluehat is signed up
… and two guys coming, registered as group participants, who have never been on any of our calls
… . someone from Siemens and someone from Canton consulting

Pierre-Antoine Champin: I don’t know them well but met one

Dave Longley: The LD Security session https://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC/2019/SessionIdeas#Linked_Data_Security may be of interest to people here

dlongely: manu is trying to put together a LD security topic on Wed

Ivan Herman: and the DID WG has been announced
… dlongley, you will be on it?

dlongely: yep

Rob Sanderson: I will try to participate
… and it’s the top of the hour. See (some of) you in japan

Ivan Herman: we will have a call the week after TPAC

7. Adjourn

8. Resolutions

9. Action Items