16:18:04 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #json-ld
16:18:04 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2019/02/15-json-ld-irc
16:18:05 <ivan> rrsagent, set log public
16:18:05 <ivan> Meeting: JSON-LD Working Group Telco
16:18:05 <ivan> Chair: azaroth
16:18:05 <ivan> Date: 2019-02-15
16:18:05 <ivan> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-json-ld-wg/2019Feb/0017.html
16:18:05 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2019-02-15: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-json-ld-wg/2019Feb/0017.html
16:38:25 <azaroth> azaroth has joined #json-ld
16:41:38 <ivan> regrets+ tcole
16:47:20 <ajs6f> ajs6f has joined #json-ld
16:55:44 <pchampin> pchampin has joined #json-ld
16:59:08 <ivan> present+
16:59:26 <pchampin> present+
16:59:36 <bigbluehat> present+
16:59:45 <dlongley> present+
17:00:29 <azaroth> present+
17:00:50 <workergnome> workergnome has joined #json-ld
17:01:48 <hsolbrig> hsolbrig has joined #json-ld
17:02:36 <gkellogg> present+
17:03:06 <simonstey> simonstey has joined #json-ld
17:03:29 <azaroth> scribenick: pchampin
17:04:00 <azaroth> TOPIC: Approve minutes of Face to Face
17:04:21 <pchampin> azaroth: there are some questions here
17:04:23 <ajs6f> present+
17:04:35 <pchampin> ... on Friday, we discussed some complicated issue about framing,
17:04:54 <simonstey> present+
17:04:55 <pchampin> ... but the issue referenced in the minutes seems to be the wrong one
17:05:05 <ivan> https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-wg/pull/28
17:05:21 <pchampin> ivan: I put a PR with the change fixing this
17:05:51 <pchampin> gkellogg: the issue that we orginally discussed was the overloading of bnode
17:06:08 <pchampin> ... while the issue we referenced is the use of bnode in frames, which I don't think is controversial
17:07:32 <azaroth> PROPOSAL: Approve the minutes of the F2F, with the changes for the framing issue *actually* discussed rather than the issue number recorded
17:07:42 <dlongley> +1
17:07:44 <pchampin> +1
17:07:45 <azaroth> +1
17:07:46 <hsolbrig> +1
17:07:48 <simonstey> +1
17:07:48 <ivan> +1
17:08:02 <bigbluehat> +1
17:08:13 <gkellogg> +1
17:08:22 <dlehn> +1
17:08:22 <workergnome> +1
17:08:30 <ajs6f> +1
17:08:38 <azaroth> RESOLVED: Approve the minutes of the F2F, with the changes for the framing issue *actually* discussed rather than the issue number recorded
17:08:53 <azaroth> TOPIC: Administrivia
17:09:07 <dlehn> present+
17:09:17 <pchampin> azaroth: thank you everyone who attended the F2F
17:09:42 <pchampin> ... (either in person on remotely)
17:10:57 <pchampin> bigbluehat: a while ago, we took it to the TAG for some "HTML & JSON-LD" related discussion
17:11:05 <bigbluehat> https://github.com/w3ctag/design-reviews/issues/312#issuecomment-463373808
17:11:08 <ivan> q+
17:11:19 <pchampin> ... we have proposed a few date for them to attend one of our calls
17:11:30 <gkellogg> q+
17:11:32 <bigbluehat> ack ivan
17:11:48 <pchampin> ... this might be either march XX or march YY
17:11:50 <gkellogg> q-
17:11:54 <bigbluehat> q+ to explain more about the topic
17:12:10 <azaroth> ack bigbluehat
17:12:10 <Zakim> bigbluehat, you wanted to explain more about the topic
17:12:10 <bigbluehat> March 1st or 15th
17:12:21 <pchampin> s/XX/1/
17:12:27 <pchampin> s/YY/15/
17:13:12 <pchampin> bigbluehat: some members of the TAG have some ideas about relations between JSON-LD and HTML modules
17:13:41 <pchampin> ... which are part of the future "Web component" standard
17:14:19 <azaroth> regrets+ jeff_mixter
17:14:19 <pchampin> ... It is not clear what exactly they want to discuss, but this might have deep relations with the future of HTML.
17:14:57 <pchampin> ... It also seems that Google is planning to include some JSON-LD processing in their Lighthouse tool.
17:15:37 <pchampin> ... Some JSON-LD is becoming more and more coupled with HTML.
17:15:52 <pchampin> ivan: It would be could if they could provide some pointers in advance,
17:16:13 <pchampin> ... so that we can look at them before the call,
17:16:21 <pchampin> ... this will make the discussion more interesting.
17:16:50 <azaroth> q?
17:17:28 <pchampin> bigbluehat: I'll check with Travis and Alex if they want to address Lighthouse,
17:17:37 <azaroth> SUBTOPIC: Timing
17:18:10 <pchampin> ... and I can provide some pointers on the list.
17:18:46 <pchampin> ... Let's have the TAG join our call on the 1st of march.
17:19:02 <pchampin> azaroth: We intend to have our first CR by the end of summer.
17:19:44 <pchampin> ... We propably have the time for 2 CR, then PR, and our REC on June 2020.
17:19:58 <gkellogg> q+
17:20:00 <pchampin> ... We need to set a date beyond which new features will not be accepted.
17:20:18 <azaroth> ack gkellogg
17:20:28 <pchampin> ... I would propose march 1st, and publicize this date.
17:20:51 <pchampin> gkellogg: people need to understand which features we currently have.
17:21:17 <pchampin> ... I suggest that we wait for a couple of weeks after the WD is published,
17:21:25 <pchampin> ... which will be hard to achieve by march 1st.
17:23:00 <pchampin> azaroth: we can wait until the end of march, then.
17:23:40 <azaroth> q?
17:24:17 <pchampin> bigbluehat: the plan is for Rob and I to write a blog post to call for implementations.
17:24:46 <pchampin> ... I also hope to go through a list of existing implementations, and reach out to each of those project, to suggest them to implement 1.1 features.
17:25:23 <pchampin> ... If anyone has any contact with / contributes to one of these groups, please take an action to notify them.
17:25:44 <pchampin> ... Also, let me know if you know about other implementations not registered on json-ld.org .
17:26:01 <gkellogg> q+
17:26:02 <pchampin> azaroth: our hope is to have more than the minimum 2 implementations for each feature.
17:26:06 <azaroth> ack gkellogg
17:26:42 <dlehn> would be great if we could at least get implementations to be able to run the 1.1 test suite, even if they just ignore all the marked 1.1 tests.
17:27:04 <pchampin> gkellogg: we need to highlight those implementations that do not have the resource at the moment to implement all 1.1 features.
17:27:06 <ivan> q+
17:27:08 <azaroth> ack ivan
17:27:14 <pchampin> ... we must encourage people to contribute PR to those.
17:27:50 <pchampin> ivan: the list I see on json-ld.org are the developers of 1.0
17:28:09 <dlongley> +1 to adding some notation about implementations that support or will support 1.1
17:29:18 <pchampin> ... we should have a marker for those that implement 1.1
17:29:49 <pchampin> gkellogg: the test-suite page on json-ld.org now shows the location of the new test suite
17:29:57 <azaroth> q?
17:30:26 <pchampin> azaroth: then there is some outreach and dissemination to be done
17:30:35 <gkellogg> q+
17:30:47 <azaroth> ack gkellogg
17:31:22 <pchampin> gkellogg: we could update json-ld.org to announce some of the coming features in 1.1
17:31:35 <pchampin> ... the only thing it says for the moment is that the WG has been launched
17:31:38 <azaroth> ACTION: bigbluehat to update json-ld.org home page for 1.1 coming features
17:32:16 <pchampin> ivan: I thought we were talking about the WH homepage.
17:32:32 <pchampin> gkellogg: it wouln't hurt to update that one as well.
17:32:42 <pchampin> ... we could use the wiki for that.
17:32:44 <azaroth> q?
17:33:09 <pchampin> azaroth: ivan, pchampin and gkellogg are going to the Berlin workshop
17:33:17 <pchampin> https://www.w3.org/Data/events/data-ws-2019/
17:33:24 <pchampin> gkellogg: danbri should be here as well
17:34:05 <azaroth> TOPIC: Sealed Contexts timing
17:34:54 <pchampin> azaroth: a discussion started yesterday about the decisions made during F2F about sealed contexts
17:35:46 <pchampin> ... we need to see to which extent the current proposal works and does not work with existing use cases;
17:35:52 <dlongley> we plan on implementing next week and we'll engage on Github
17:36:09 <pchampin> ... we have spent several week and close to half the F2F time to talk about it;
17:36:18 <pchampin> ... continuing is not in the interest of the group.
17:36:31 <pchampin> dlongley: we are globally happy with the decision of the F2F,
17:36:44 <pchampin> ... but we need sealing to be a little more restrictive.
17:36:53 <pchampin> ... We will come up with an implementation of what we need.
17:37:13 <gkellogg> q+
17:37:21 <azaroth> ack gkellogg
17:37:25 <pchampin> azaroth: this will help to assess how much additional complexity is required
17:37:50 <pchampin> gkellogg: what we have been looking at *was* doable (I did implement it),
17:38:02 <dlongley> q+
17:38:09 <pchampin> ... but we still decided that it added too much complexity.
17:38:15 <azaroth> ack dlongley
17:38:23 <pchampin> ... That being said, I'm happy to discuss with you about it.
17:38:43 <azaroth> q?
17:38:47 <fr33domlover> fr33domlover has left #json-ld
17:38:47 <pchampin> dlongley: All we want to do is add constraints on when the context can be cleared with 'null'.
17:38:56 <pchampin> ... We don't think it adds that much complexity.
17:38:58 <azaroth> q?
17:39:10 <azaroth> TOPIC: Issue 27
17:40:03 <pchampin> azaroth: the issue is about Framing blank node unnamed graphs
17:40:04 <azaroth> https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-framing/issues/27
17:40:19 <pchampin> dlongley: I have an example of a document with a graph container,
17:40:52 <pchampin> ... and couldn't to get the same document as my input using framing.
17:41:09 <pchampin> ... It seems to defeat the purpose of framing.
17:41:49 <pchampin> gkellogg: It is true that this should be possible,
17:42:08 <pchampin> ... but I doubt we can address that problem before the next publication.
17:42:56 <pchampin> azaroth: should there be a note in the next WD about that issue?
17:43:09 <azaroth> PROPOSAL: Leave framing 27 open, and to investigate the cause. Record open issue in the next PWD of Framing.
17:43:13 <pchampin> gkellogg: this would appear in the list of open issue that we append to each WD
17:43:17 <simonstey> +1
17:43:19 <pchampin> +1
17:43:22 <azaroth> +1
17:43:26 <dlongley> +1
17:43:26 <ajs6f> +1
17:43:31 <hsolbrig> +1
17:43:32 <ivan> +1
17:43:33 <workergnome> +1
17:43:55 <bigbluehat> +1
17:43:59 <pchampin> azaroth: given the low number of open issue, I would prefer some editor text to make the issue more visible
17:44:05 <dlehn> +1
17:44:11 <azaroth> RESOLVED: Leave framing 27 open, and to investigate the cause. Record open issue in the next PWD of Framing.
17:44:14 <gkellogg> +1
17:44:14 <dlongley> once we get sealed contexts working the way we need we might be able to look into addressing this one next
17:44:29 <dlongley> (we == Digital Bazaar)
17:44:34 <azaroth> TOPIC: Class-scoped Framing
17:44:36 <azaroth> https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-framing/issues/29
17:45:23 <pchampin> azaroth: framing is like programming by example;
17:45:46 <pchampin> ... you need to know the exact structure from the root down.
17:46:39 <pchampin> ... For some properties (like "link" or "tag"),
17:46:43 <azaroth> https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-framing/issues/29#issuecomment-463295607
17:46:58 <pchampin> ... you would need to be able to say "anywhere this property appears, it should conform with this structure"
17:47:05 <ivan> q+
17:47:06 <pchampin> ... but this is not currently possible.
17:47:31 <azaroth> ack ivan
17:47:38 <gkellogg> q+
17:47:41 <ivan> https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-framing/issues/38
17:48:15 <pchampin> ivan: isn't it related to the issue I raised recently, while reading the framing document (issue 38)?
17:48:49 <pchampin> ... We can not currently have a "bush-shaped" frame, with several patterns,
17:48:55 <dlongley> q+ to say it's not the same but related :)
17:49:05 <pchampin> ... the first matching one being used.
17:49:07 <azaroth> q?
17:49:10 <azaroth> ack gkellogg
17:49:13 <pchampin> ... Wouldn't it solve your issue as well.
17:49:16 <dlongley> q-
17:49:22 <pchampin> s/as well./as well?/
17:49:44 <pchampin> gkellogg: I think it is possible to have a bush.
17:50:15 <pchampin> ivan: not for the pattern itself.
17:50:20 <dlongley> this is pretty close: http://tinyurl.com/y356yzo8
17:50:44 <pchampin> gkellogg: I think your particular example could still be soved.
17:50:45 <dlongley> to what Ivan wants -- in JSON-LD 1.0 framing
17:50:55 <pchampin> s/soved/solved/
17:51:09 <pchampin> ... I'm not sure this completely addresses what Rob wants.
17:51:28 <dlongley> q+
17:51:30 <pchampin> ... This is more like a "macro" feature.
17:52:05 <azaroth> +1 to similarity (but not identity) to scoped contexts
17:52:23 <pchampin> ... It is somehow similar to scoped contexts... Something like a scoped frame.
17:52:46 <azaroth> ack dlongley
17:53:09 <azaroth> q+ to further discuss scoped framing
17:53:11 <pchampin> dlongley: I think that what Ivan wants is similar.
17:53:44 <pchampin> ... And I do think that there is a gap in the current framing document.
17:54:10 <pchampin> ... It makes sense for us to create like a 'type frame'.
17:54:22 <azaroth> q?
17:54:24 <azaroth> ack azaroth
17:54:24 <Zakim> azaroth, you wanted to further discuss scoped framing
17:54:32 <gkellogg> If we do it for types, we should probably do it for properties, too
17:56:10 <gkellogg> +
17:56:12 <gkellogg> q+
17:56:16 <dlongley> something like `@anywhere` makes sense to me as well ... defining "subframes" at the top of the frame that get applied when certain types or properties are encountered
17:56:16 <azaroth> ack gkellogg
17:56:46 <azaroth> `@frame` :D
17:56:51 <pchampin> gkellogg: we might define something parallel to contexts, that could appear anywhere contexts can appear,
17:57:41 <azaroth> PROPOSAL: Work on a proposal for solving framing#29 along the lines of embedded contexts / scoped contexts, but for embedded sub-frames
17:57:46 <azaroth> +1
17:57:47 <dlongley> +1
17:57:47 <gkellogg> +1
17:57:48 <simonstey> +1
17:57:50 <pchampin> +1
17:57:52 <ivan> +1
17:57:52 <dlehn> +1
17:57:53 <workergnome> +1
17:57:53 <bigbluehat> +1
17:58:08 <azaroth> RESOLVED: Work on a proposal for solving framing#29 along the lines of embedded contexts / scoped contexts, but for embedded sub-frames
17:58:37 <gkellogg> We should look to ShEx and SHACL for similar patterns we might leverage
17:59:36 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:59:36 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/02/15-json-ld-minutes.html ivan