16:00:52 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #json-ld
16:00:52 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2019/07/26-json-ld-irc
16:00:57 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #json-ld
16:01:00 <azaroth> azaroth has joined #json-ld
16:01:01 <bigbluehat> rrsagent, set log public
16:01:05 <bigbluehat> Meeting: JSON-LD Working Group Telco
16:01:11 <bigbluehat> Date: 2019-07-26
16:01:11 <simonstey> scribe: simonstey
16:01:14 <azaroth> present+
16:01:14 <gkellogg> present+
16:01:19 <bigbluehat> Chair: azaroth, bigbluehat
16:01:31 <simonstey> presentü
16:01:34 <bigbluehat> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-json-ld-wg/2019Jul/0008.html
16:01:34 <simonstey> present+
16:01:46 <bigbluehat> bigbluehat has changed the topic to: Agenda 2019-07-26: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-json-ld-wg/2019Jul/0008.html
16:02:08 <bigbluehat> present+
16:02:41 <dlehn> present+
16:02:47 <dlongley> present+
16:03:28 <simonstey> topic: approval of last week's minutes
16:03:29 <azaroth> TOPIC: Approve minutes of last call
16:03:39 <azaroth> PROPOSAL: Approve minutes of last call: https://www.w3.org/2018/json-ld-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2019/2019-07-19-json-ld
16:03:42 <azaroth> +1
16:03:45 <simonstey> +1
16:03:47 <gkellogg> +1
16:03:49 <bigbluehat> +1
16:04:07 <dlehn> +1
16:04:09 <azaroth> RESOLVED: Approve minutes of last call: https://www.w3.org/2018/json-ld-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2019/2019-07-19-json-ld
16:04:16 <azaroth> TOPIC: Announcements / Reminders
16:04:27 <jeff_mixter> jeff_mixter has joined #json-ld
16:04:29 <simonstey> azaroth: this is your standing reminder for TPAC
16:04:33 <jeff_mixter> present+
16:04:42 <simonstey> https://www.w3.org/2019/09/TPAC/
16:04:54 <azaroth> TOPIC: Horizontal Reviews
16:04:56 <simonstey> azaroth: continuing with horizontal review
16:05:06 <azaroth> ref: https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-wg/issues/88
16:05:16 <simonstey> ... as anticipated, the privacy folks don't really know what to do with us
16:05:27 <bigbluehat> q+
16:05:39 <simonstey> ... remark says it's not really a web api.. so you tell us
16:06:06 <azaroth> ack bigbluehat
16:06:09 <gkellogg> q+
16:06:32 <simonstey> bigbluehat: I'm wondering there's any text we can add.. that we are not assuming Web === browser
16:07:14 <simonstey> ... we don't assume it inherits everything the browser dictates; we don't assume everything is HTTP(s)
16:07:22 <simonstey> ... the web is much larger than that
16:07:37 <simonstey> ... JSON-LD is already used in WoT
16:07:52 <simonstey> ... which will face the same challenges eventually
16:07:56 <azaroth> q?
16:08:08 <azaroth> ack gkellogg
16:08:19 <gkellogg> https://w3c.github.io/json-ld-api/#the-jsonldprocessor-interface
16:08:30 <simonstey> gkellogg: one issue we have is that webidle is heavily biased towards browsers
16:08:51 <simonstey> s/webidle/webidl/
16:09:15 <bigbluehat> q+
16:09:18 <azaroth> ack bigbluehat
16:09:19 <dlongley> q+
16:09:29 <simonstey> gkellogg: when I looked at that, I wasn't able to come up with anything better
16:09:49 <simonstey> bigbluehat: most specs are encouraged to use webidl
16:10:11 <simonstey> ... if we just make it clear that we use webidl because that's what everyone is supposed to be using
16:10:41 <azaroth> ack dlongley
16:10:51 <simonstey> azaroth: is there an example anyone can think of, where the api is defined via webidl but is obviously not supposed to be ran in the browser?
16:10:56 <dlongley> https://heycam.github.io/webidl/#Exposed
16:11:53 <bigbluehat> q+
16:11:59 <azaroth> ack bigbluehat
16:11:59 <simonstey> gkellogg: I added "exposed" because it wouldn't pass the pub check otherwise
16:12:10 <simonstey> bigbluehat: do we know if this exposed requirement is a new one?
16:12:19 <simonstey> gkellogg: respec started complaining a week or so ago
16:12:47 <simonstey> ... they were tightening the screws everywhere recently, hence checking became more thorough
16:13:32 <simonstey> gkellogg: yeah respec is complaining now.. but it's possible it's also a TAG issue?
16:13:47 <simonstey> bigbluehat: do you have the PR/commit for it?
16:14:14 <simonstey> azaroth: the webidl def. doesn't say "exposed" is mandatory
16:14:17 <dlongley> https://github.com/heycam/webidl/issues/365, https://github.com/heycam/webidl/pull/423 <-- makes Exposed mandatory
16:15:22 <simonstey> azaroth: continuing with response to privacy
16:15:32 <simonstey> ... requests must not have any user describing state
16:15:34 <dlongley> q+
16:15:42 <azaroth> ack dlongley
16:15:51 <simonstey> dlongley: that will cause problems
16:16:01 <simonstey> azaroth: e.g. when you need auth.?
16:16:10 <simonstey> dlongley: yeah.. including cookies and what not
16:17:24 <simonstey> azaroth: is there anything else we can say? other than saying the same thing with different words?
16:17:54 <azaroth> q?
16:17:55 <simonstey> azaroth: I'll have a go at responding after the call..
16:17:58 <azaroth> TOPIC: Issues
16:18:06 <azaroth> SUBTOPIC: Indexing with `@includes`
16:18:13 <simonstey> https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-syntax/issues/19
16:18:34 <simonstey> azaroth: this is one I brought up in the community group
16:19:14 <simonstey> ... gkellogg has implemented it
16:19:32 <azaroth> https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-syntax/issues/19#issuecomment-513976987
16:19:52 <azaroth> q?
16:19:56 <simonstey> azaroth: gkellogg had a bunch of questions which I tried to answer.. any thoughts/comments?
16:20:12 <simonstey> gkellogg: regarding what I've implemented in the api doc
16:20:35 <simonstey> ... I've satisfied most/all requirements
16:20:54 <simonstey> ... node references work just as well (not for values though..)
16:21:19 <simonstey> ... if you add nesting though, this allows for it
16:21:53 <simonstey> ... any keyword that's included in an object would lead to colliding keywords.. so I added necessary wording for that
16:22:44 <simonstey> ... I was pretty happy with the way it turned out (we might want to bikeshed the term @included though)
16:22:44 <dlongley> q+
16:22:54 <azaroth> ack dlongley
16:23:11 <simonstey> dlongley: there's a very large thread with lots of stuff in there..
16:23:24 <simonstey> ... is there an example of what the compact form would look like?
16:23:32 <simonstey> ... any pointers to this?
16:23:43 <gkellogg> https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-syntax/pull/207
16:23:50 <azaroth> https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/json-ld-syntax/pull/207.html#shared-value-indexing
16:24:01 <gkellogg> https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/json-ld-syntax/pull/207.html#shared-value-indexing
16:24:15 <simonstey> ... (example 103)
16:24:34 <simonstey> ... ex 105 shows the effects of adding nesting
16:25:03 <simonstey> dlongley: if you need more things that need to be added, you may run into issues
16:25:13 <timCole> timCole has joined #json-ld
16:25:16 <simonstey> ... with different aliases
16:25:27 <simonstey> gkellogg: the idea is to have a single included block
16:26:02 <simonstey> dlongley: so one has to hope that not more than one section is required
16:26:34 <simonstey> gkellogg: well kinda like it's done with types
16:26:40 <simonstey> ... and folding
16:27:07 <simonstey> ... it could be done..
16:27:40 <simonstey> dlongley: I've the feeling we are missing one more layer to make this complete and sound
16:28:15 <simonstey> gkellogg: I don't really understand the uc. for needing more than one included block
16:29:14 <simonstey> dlongley: [explained uc]
16:29:51 <simonstey> ... my only concern is that the second someone would come along needing > 1 included block
16:30:07 <simonstey> ... we would have to through this away and come up with something different
16:31:02 <simonstey> gkellogg: refining the place where we out this in the API doc. might result in it not having to be thrown away though
16:31:19 <simonstey> ... btw. it wouldn't survive round-tripping though
16:32:05 <simonstey> ... [elaborating on some hacks to make it potentially round-trippable]
16:32:13 <azaroth_> azaroth_ has joined #json-ld
16:32:37 <simonstey> ... maybe using framing? haven't investigated this solution thoroughly though
16:32:56 <azaroth_> q?
16:33:18 <simonstey> ... possible but challenging.. without enough reason for doing it, it's probably not worth the time
16:33:25 <bigbluehat> q+ to ask about `@included`'s similarity to `@graph` (and graph containers)
16:33:35 <azaroth_> ack bigbluehat
16:33:35 <Zakim> bigbluehat, you wanted to ask about `@included`'s similarity to `@graph` (and graph containers)
16:33:37 <simonstey> dlongley: just wanted to make sure there's no other trivial uc it stands in the WAY
16:33:46 <simonstey> s/WAY/way/
16:33:57 <simonstey> bigbluehat: graph containers feel kinda similar
16:34:15 <simonstey> ... wondering whether the same sort of plumbing would work for this?
16:34:33 <simonstey> gkellogg: @graph has the same req. though
16:34:46 <simonstey> ... included maps are purely syntactic
16:34:58 <simonstey> ... whereas @graph is a semantic entity
16:35:41 <dlongley> q+
16:35:54 <simonstey> azaroth: the uc was "Assuming a nested set of resources where leaf nodes are frequently repeated, it is difficult to find the definition of the node after compaction. Imagine a classification that is used on the second item in a list, and again on the 26th. It would be nice to have a place to look up the label for the classification, instead of repeating it on both 2 and 26. Similarly, information about repeated people, services, .."
16:36:02 <simonstey> ... or anything else could benefit from this pattern."
16:36:02 <azaroth> ack dlongley
16:36:32 <simonstey> dlongley: yeah.. that sounds to me like the reason we have framing for
16:37:02 <simonstey> azaroth: we would still be able to expand it though
16:37:20 <simonstey> s/still/still need to/
16:37:24 <gkellogg> q+
16:37:39 <azaroth> ack gkellogg
16:37:56 <simonstey> gkellogg: framing isn't entirely for "pretty" compaction
16:38:36 <dlongley> q+
16:38:44 <simonstey> ... [discussing ways of folding values in using framing]
16:38:56 <simonstey> ... it isn't something one would expect though
16:39:33 <azaroth> ack dlongley
16:39:43 <simonstey> ... but that's something that would require a lot of changes to framing.. and I don't know whether we want to go down that road
16:40:24 <simonstey> dlongley: maybe it's as simple as having a targeted @embed
16:40:37 <simonstey> ... it would be in there as a keyword
16:41:30 <azaroth> q?
16:42:21 <simonstey> azaroth: maybe we can resort to good old code rather than having to rely on framing or compaction for this
16:42:37 <simonstey> dlongley: somewhat of a "meh" feeling...
16:44:56 <simonstey> gkellogg: [explains what would happen if including happens as part of framing]
16:45:12 <simonstey> ... the included block would go in the frame
16:45:15 <bigbluehat> q+ to ask about JSON API specifically
16:45:38 <simonstey> azaroth: the intent is, when an API engineer gets an instance of the data
16:45:55 <azaroth> ack bigbluehat
16:45:55 <Zakim> bigbluehat, you wanted to ask about JSON API specifically
16:46:00 <bigbluehat> https://jsonapi.org/
16:46:07 <simonstey> ... I mean this would be the eq. of always embedding which we can today already
16:46:22 <simonstey> s/can/can do/
16:46:39 <simonstey> bigbluehat: it sounds in their case more like named graph inclusion
16:46:40 <dlongley> seems like we need an `@default @graph` container
16:46:52 <dlongley> "included": {"@container": "@graph", "@graph": "@default"}
16:47:28 <dlongley> and then you can frame documents with "@embed": "some_top_level_key_to_embed_this_under"
16:47:39 <simonstey> bigbluehat: if we include something like this, we have to clarify it's not the stuff jsonapi is talking about
16:47:41 <dlongley> q+
16:47:45 <azaroth> ack dlongley
16:48:02 <simonstey> dlongley: I agree with what bigbluehat was saying
16:48:22 <simonstey> ... I'm wondering whether we need a default as I posted in irc
16:49:08 <bigbluehat> example 103 https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/json-ld-syntax/pull/207.html#included-values-to-be-expanded
16:49:10 <simonstey> ... so what the syntax would need is something like that (where it's saying it's not a named graph)
16:49:56 <simonstey> gkellogg: in 103, it's value is a node object
16:50:11 <simonstey> ... before expansion it was a node IRI
16:51:02 <simonstey> ... it would be an ID graph/map
16:51:11 <simonstey> ... what it doesn't do is the nesting bit
16:51:28 <simonstey> ... where the value isn't folded back in base2
16:51:59 <simonstey> s/base2/base too/
16:52:30 <bigbluehat> q+ to ask if we could just use `"@type": "@included"` and not the special `@included`container thing (and use an `@graph @index` combo for example 103 or just `@graph` for jsonapi style stuff)
16:52:51 <azaroth> q?
16:52:53 <azaroth> ack bigbluehat
16:52:53 <Zakim> bigbluehat, you wanted to ask if we could just use `"@type": "@included"` and not the special `@included`container thing (and use an `@graph @index` combo for example 103 or just
16:52:56 <Zakim> ... `@graph` for jsonapi style stuff)
16:53:24 <simonstey> bigbluehat: `"@type": "@included"` would make a lot of sense
16:53:54 <dlongley> q+
16:54:00 <simonstey> azaroth: it would need to have some way of asserting that whatever the default graph is is not a new graph
16:54:18 <simonstey> ... that's just syntactic sugar
16:54:35 <azaroth> ack dlongley
16:54:39 <simonstey> ... very similar to an ID map
16:54:55 <simonstey> dlongley: I would very much prefer us to reuse existing stuff
16:55:16 <simonstey> ... instead of having a new feature for each uc
16:55:49 <simonstey> azaroth: nested id map?
16:56:18 <simonstey> gkellogg: if we somehow would have a toplvl id map
16:56:34 <simonstey> ... then we would have a place for that
16:56:40 <dlongley> q+
16:56:45 <azaroth> ack dlongley
16:57:25 <simonstey> dlongley: a toplvl idmap could accomplish that.. maybe
16:57:48 <simonstey> gkellogg: then we should put this on hold for now and figure out how we could do a toplvl id map
16:58:57 <simonstey> ... instead of @id leading to a named graph, maybe allowing @id @default
17:00:56 <simonstey> gkellogg: if you could look at the other issue that's in the agenda dlongley
17:00:57 <azaroth> TOPIC: Adjourn
17:02:30 <azaroth> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:02:30 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/07/26-json-ld-minutes.html azaroth
17:02:44 <azaroth> rrsagent, make log pubilc
17:02:46 <azaroth> rrsagent, make log public
17:35:19 <azaroth> azaroth has joined #json-ld
17:44:50 <azaroth> azaroth has joined #json-ld
18:34:41 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #json-ld
23:54:31 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #json-ld