15:25:38 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #json-ld
15:25:38 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2019/08/30-json-ld-irc
15:25:39 <ivan> rrsagent, set log public
15:25:39 <ivan> Meeting: JSON-LD Working Group Telco
15:25:39 <ivan> Date: 2019-08-30
15:25:39 <ivan> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-json-ld-wg/2019Aug/0020.html
15:25:39 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2019-08-30: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-json-ld-wg/2019Aug/0020.html
15:25:40 <ivan> Regrets+
15:25:40 <ivan> Chair: azaroth
15:55:02 <ajs6f> ajs6f has joined #json-ld
15:56:30 <azaroth> azaroth has joined #json-ld
15:56:48 <ivan> present+
15:57:48 <ajs6f> present+
15:59:17 <pchampin> pchampin has joined #json-ld
15:59:23 <azaroth> present+
16:00:11 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #json-ld
16:01:10 <dlongley> present+
16:01:12 <gkellogg> present+
16:01:30 <azaroth> regrets+ Ruben_Taelman
16:01:31 <pchampin> present+
16:01:57 <azaroth> TOPIC: Scribe Selection
16:02:22 <bigbluehat> present+
16:02:35 <pchampin> scribe: pchampin
16:02:41 <dlehn> present+
16:02:44 <azaroth> TOPIC: MInutes
16:02:45 <pchampin> azaroth: the scribe's job should be easy today
16:03:00 <azaroth> PROPOSAL: Approve minutes of the previous call https://www.w3.org/2018/json-ld-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2019/2019-08-23-json-ld
16:03:14 <ivan> +1
16:03:15 <gkellogg> +0
16:03:15 <ajs6f> +1
16:03:15 <azaroth> +1
16:03:16 <dlongley> +1
16:03:18 <pchampin> +1
16:03:33 <azaroth> RESOLVED: Approve minutes of the previous call https://www.w3.org/2018/json-ld-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2019/2019-08-23-json-ld
16:03:47 <azaroth> TOPIC: Announcements / Reminder
16:03:57 <pchampin> azaroth: TPAC approaching
16:04:10 <pchampin> ... I suggest we have a call next week, but not the following (just before TPAC)
16:04:27 <ivan> +1
16:04:48 <pchampin> ... Any objection?
16:04:53 <bigbluehat> +1
16:05:27 <azaroth> TOPIC: Horizontal Reviews
16:05:34 <azaroth> ref: https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-wg/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Ahorizontal-review
16:06:18 <pchampin> ivan: re i18n, I have pinged Richard again. He said he would look at it last week.
16:06:29 <pchampin> ... As far as we are concerned, I consider that we are done.
16:07:03 <pchampin> ... The proposal for direction in RDF literal got no feedback from the community,
16:07:11 <bigbluehat> q+
16:07:13 <pchampin> ... so the ideal solution will not fly.
16:07:16 <azaroth> ack bigbluehat
16:07:37 <pchampin> bigbluehat: I reached out to the a10y group
16:08:08 <pchampin> ... The current suggestion is to send our answers to the checklist to the mailing list,
16:08:11 <pchampin> ... see if anyone cares.
16:08:37 <pchampin> azaroth: I pinged the Security group this week, no response yet.
16:08:41 <bigbluehat> s/a10y/a11y
16:09:26 <pchampin> ... We will see at TPAC.
16:09:42 <pchampin> ... The Privacy people did enguage, but have nothing much to add.
16:10:50 <azaroth> q?
16:10:52 <pchampin> ... We can also meet them at TPAC.
16:11:05 <azaroth> TOPIC: Issues
16:11:15 <azaroth> SUBTOPIC: Final short names
16:11:24 <azaroth> ref: https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-wg/issues/103
16:12:00 <pchampin> azaroth: Ivan raised this issue. What should 'jdonld' point to in the future?
16:12:13 <pchampin> ... 1.0 as it currently does, or the most recent version of the spec?
16:12:28 <ivan> q+
16:12:36 <pchampin> ... There has been some discussion on the list.
16:12:40 <gkellogg> q+
16:12:48 <pchampin> ... The suggestion is that 'jsonld' always points to the most recent,
16:13:07 <azaroth> ack ivan
16:13:08 <pchampin> ... and 'jsonld10' and 'jsonld11' point to respective versions.
16:13:27 <pchampin> ivan: I have to check with the webmasters what exactly the rules are.
16:13:39 <pchampin> ... If the WG is fine with this solution, I can start the discussion with them.
16:14:15 <azaroth> q?
16:14:17 <azaroth> ack gkellogg
16:14:29 <pchampin> ... Some people like pointin to the very last working draft,
16:14:43 <pchampin> ... I'm not sure that's a good idea, but we can discuss this later.
16:14:46 <azaroth> q+ to ask about other specs referencing 10
16:15:20 <pchampin> gkellogg: my concern is that this will change what 'jsonld' points to...
16:15:38 <azaroth> ack azaroth
16:15:38 <Zakim> azaroth, you wanted to ask about other specs referencing 10
16:15:39 <pchampin> ivan: we need not solve this before CR
16:15:40 <pchampin> q+
16:16:20 <pchampin> azaroth: are there other specifications who reference JSON-LD 1.0 via `jsonld`?
16:16:57 <pchampin> ... this could lead to strange things for readers,
16:17:01 <azaroth> ack pchampin
16:17:06 <azaroth> scribe: azaroth
16:17:35 <pchampin> ... especially if those spec say something like "JSON-LD does not support this",
16:17:46 <pchampin> ... while in fact JSON-LD 1.1 does.
16:18:13 <azaroth> pchampin: Just wanted to point out that JSON-LD pointing to something else is a matter of perspective. Currently it does point to the latest version
16:18:24 <ivan> q+
16:18:32 <azaroth> ... I would argue it doesn't change what we point to. Rob's arguemtn about other specs is a good point.
16:18:35 <azaroth> ack ivan
16:18:39 <azaroth> scrive: pchampin
16:18:43 <azaroth> scribe: pchampin
16:19:17 <gkellogg> q+
16:19:20 <bigbluehat> q+ to ask if basically all the "spec ref" links get magically upgraded?
16:19:25 <pchampin> ivan: to the best of my knowledge, no W3C spec referencing JSON-LD extend it in a way tha azaroth suggests
16:19:35 <azaroth> q?
16:19:44 <dlongley> q+ to say that problem is super minimal compared to the benefit
16:19:48 <azaroth> ack gkellogg
16:19:56 <pchampin> ... Groups out there may have done something nasty in that line,
16:20:04 <pchampin> ... but well, they shouldn't have been nasty.
16:20:52 <azaroth> ack bigbluehat
16:20:52 <Zakim> bigbluehat, you wanted to ask if basically all the "spec ref" links get magically upgraded?
16:20:54 <pchampin> gkellogg: if a spec has particulat version dependency, they should point to a precise version
16:21:01 <pchampin> s/particulat/particular/
16:21:36 <pchampin> bigbluehat: Activity Streams has its own media-type, because JSON-LD didn't support lists of lists.
16:22:00 <azaroth> q?
16:22:02 <azaroth> ack dlongley
16:22:02 <Zakim> dlongley, you wanted to say that problem is super minimal compared to the benefit
16:22:04 <pchampin> ... What would be the impact on testing for other specs?
16:22:12 <azaroth> +1 to dlongley
16:22:20 <ivan> +1
16:22:24 <gkellogg> +1
16:22:32 <bigbluehat> for the curious https://www.specref.org/?q=json-ld
16:22:45 <pchampin> dlongley: I think that the benefit of having the latest version come up for 'jsonld' outweights the potential costs.
16:23:01 <azaroth> ACTION: ivan to contact w3 team to determine possibility of json-ld shortname pointing to latest version
16:23:03 <gkellogg> q+
16:23:15 <azaroth> ack gkellogg
16:23:52 <pchampin> gkellogg: what does this mean for us? Sounds like "nothing" in the short term,
16:24:18 <pchampin> ... except changing our references from 'jsonld' to 'jsonld10'.
16:24:22 <pchampin> ivan: correct
16:24:30 <azaroth> SUBTOPIC: Framing blank nodes
16:24:32 <azaroth> ref: https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-framing/issues/27
16:25:24 <pchampin> dlongley: I raised this issue while trying to frame VC-like data,
16:25:59 <dlongley> https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-framing/issues/27#issuecomment-519274388
16:26:28 <pchampin> ... asked if other implementations had the same issue.
16:27:09 <pchampin> ... This example generate a strange artifact ("ex:subject" at the bottom).
16:27:31 <pchampin> gkellog: this artifact does not produce any triple,
16:27:45 <pchampin> ... we can remove it by filtering on type. But is the output still correct?
16:27:52 <ivan> s/gkellog/gkellogg
16:28:32 <pchampin> ... The issue may not be in framing, but somehwere else (maybe compaction?).
16:29:28 <azaroth> q?
16:30:00 <pchampin> azaroth: to try and summarize: in the original data, there is exactly one named graph.
16:30:10 <pchampin> ... inside that is a proof which is a graph container.
16:30:37 <pchampin> ... The frame generates the subject as a separate graph?
16:32:02 <azaroth> q?
16:32:28 <pchampin> gkellogg: (something about this behaviour being legimitate with other data)
16:32:42 <pchampin> dlongley: may be this could be solved with `@include`?
16:33:15 <pchampin> gkellogg: there might be other holes in framing which we have not seen yet...
16:33:28 <pchampin> ... We should try to flesh out the test suite further.
16:34:42 <azaroth> SUBTOPIC: expandContext
16:34:44 <azaroth> ref: https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-api/pull/141
16:35:14 <pchampin> gkellogg: Ruben suggest it would be more convenient if we could describe options as IRIs rather than strings.
16:35:44 <pchampin> ... In the manifest, options are described by key-value pairs, where values are pairs described in the WebIDL description.
16:36:10 <azaroth> q?
16:36:24 <pchampin> ... WebIDL does not support IRIs, it is not our job to do it.
16:36:31 <pchampin> ... So I think we should reject this PR.
16:36:36 <pchampin> dlongley: I agree
16:37:04 <azaroth> PROPOSAL: Reject #141, as underlying webIDL spec does not use IRIs, and not our place to recast into them
16:37:08 <gkellogg> +1
16:37:09 <azaroth> +1
16:37:12 <dlongley> +1
16:37:17 <pchampin> +1
16:37:43 <dlehn> +1
16:37:45 <ajs6f> +1
16:37:45 <bigbluehat> +1
16:37:49 <ivan> +1
16:37:50 <azaroth> RESOLVED: Reject #141, as underlying webIDL spec does not use IRIs, and not our place to recast into them
16:38:29 <azaroth> SUBTOPIC: algorithmic readability
16:38:30 <azaroth> ref: https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-api/pull/132
16:38:33 <azaroth> scribe: azaroth
16:38:57 <azaroth> pchampin: We discussed this a while ago, and I decided to try and make the algorithms a bit easier to read
16:39:16 <azaroth> ... Thought it would be convenient to have another view of it for easier to have a global understanding before diving into the details
16:39:41 <gkellogg> https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/json-ld-api/pull/132.html#algorithm
16:39:45 <azaroth> ... Tried on one of them to use <detail> that allows folding/unfolding of the algorithm, and I think it does the job providing we use an appropriate title for the detail to give a good summary
16:40:04 <azaroth> ... problem of printing. After some exchange in the issue I added some js that unfolds during printing, so the printed version is complete
16:40:16 <azaroth> ... dlongley suggested that an unfold all button would be useful
16:40:30 <ivan> q+
16:40:43 <azaroth> ... only question is about ergonomics -- where should the button be? Hovering so it's always there, or somewhere particular?
16:40:50 <azaroth> ... perhaps also a keyboard shortcut for it?
16:40:56 <azaroth> q?
16:41:00 <gkellogg> q+
16:41:03 <azaroth> ack ivan
16:41:18 <pchampin> ivan: in general I am all for this.
16:41:20 <azaroth> ivan: In general I'm all for this. Looking for an example for where to put the button
16:41:26 <azaroth> scribe: pchampin
16:41:31 <pchampin> ... I'm looking for an example about where to put his button.
16:41:34 <pchampin> q+
16:41:48 <ivan> -> https://www.w3.org/TR/2012/REC-owl2-primer-20121211/ OWL Primer example with buttons
16:42:05 <pchampin> ivan: in the OWL primer, you can switch between syntaxes.
16:42:06 <pchampin> q-
16:42:28 <azaroth> q+ re buttons for examples in annotation
16:42:28 <bigbluehat> buttons are specifically here https://www.w3.org/TR/2012/REC-owl2-primer-20121211/#OWL_Syntaxes
16:42:35 <pchampin> ... There is a set of buttons to do that, somewhere in the introduction.
16:42:48 <azaroth> q?
16:42:49 <azaroth> ack gkellogg
16:43:10 <pchampin> gkellogg: we have an similar example in the API.
16:43:50 <pchampin> ... How much can we get with CSS selectors? Are there any a11y considerations?
16:44:38 <pchampin> ... It shouldn't be considered as normative change, but could this lead us to change the structure of some algorithms?
16:45:03 <azaroth> q?
16:45:05 <azaroth> ack azaroth
16:45:05 <Zakim> azaroth, you wanted to discuss buttons for examples in annotation
16:45:20 <pchampin> ivan: we should ask Avneesh Singh to have a look at pchampin's example.
16:46:11 <pchampin> azaroth: We has a similar button in XXX, to switch between Turtle and JSON-LD examples,
16:46:22 <azaroth> s/XXX/annotation-model/
16:46:34 <pchampin> ... this caused much change in layout, because Turtle was much shorter.
16:46:39 <azaroth> q?
16:47:06 <pchampin> ivan: that's why I suggest just one, at the top
16:47:28 <gkellogg> gkellogg has left #json-ld
16:47:31 <pchampin> gkellogg: plus each individual `<details>` has its own button
16:47:45 <azaroth> ACTION: ivan to contact Avneesh Singh regarding a11y of fold/unfold button
16:47:50 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #json-ld
16:47:54 <azaroth> q?
16:48:03 <pchampin> q+
16:48:17 <azaroth> ack pchampin
16:48:36 <azaroth> +1 to complete
16:48:41 <dlongley> +1 to complete
16:48:48 <ivan> +1 to complete
16:48:51 <bigbluehat> +1 to complete
16:50:40 <pchampin> pchampin: we seem to agree that the printed version should be complete, with all details unfoleded
16:51:14 <pchampin> gkellogg: could this be done via CSS `@media` query rather than JS?
16:51:21 <pchampin> pchampin: unfortunately none
16:51:25 <pchampin> s/none/not/
16:51:36 <pchampin> gkellogg: what about epub?
16:52:12 <pchampin> ivan: if the JS is self contained, it should work
16:52:29 <pchampin> azaroth: what if JS does not work?
16:52:50 <pchampin> pchampin: it will be printed in its current state: any detail that you opened is printed open
16:52:56 <pchampin> azaroth: that seems acceptable
16:54:34 <pchampin> azaroth: we should go to CR in a short number of weeks after TPAC
16:54:45 <pchampin> ivan: and we have to decide how long we want to be in CR
16:54:57 <gkellogg> q+
16:55:01 <azaroth> q+
16:55:01 <pchampin> ... depends how advanced the implementations are
16:55:03 <azaroth> ack gkellogg
16:55:59 <ivan> q+
16:56:07 <azaroth> ack ivan
16:56:31 <pchampin> gkellogg: data-related specs should be more advertised at TPAC
16:57:02 <azaroth> ACTION: azaroth to email coralie regarding announcement at TPAC
16:57:15 <bigbluehat> q+
16:57:20 <azaroth> ack bigbluehat
16:58:15 <pchampin> bigbluehat: we will have allies in the WoT group
16:58:55 <azaroth> q?
16:58:55 <pchampin> ... I'm reaching out the JSON-LD schema group, to help them liaise with W3C.
16:58:57 <azaroth> ack azaroth
17:00:25 <ivan> s/JSON-LD/JSON/
17:00:26 <azaroth> q?
17:01:47 <gkellogg> https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/japan/fukuoka
17:02:18 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
17:02:18 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/08/30-json-ld-minutes.html ivan
17:02:18 <ivan> zakim, bye
17:02:18 <ivan> rrsagent, bye
17:02:18 <RRSAgent> I see 3 open action items saved in https://www.w3.org/2019/08/30-json-ld-actions.rdf :
17:02:18 <RRSAgent> ACTION: ivan to contact w3 team to determine possibility of json-ld shortname pointing to latest version [1]
17:02:18 <RRSAgent>   recorded in https://www.w3.org/2019/08/30-json-ld-irc#T16-23-01
17:02:18 <RRSAgent> ACTION: ivan to contact Avneesh Singh regarding a11y of fold/unfold button [2]
17:02:18 <RRSAgent>   recorded in https://www.w3.org/2019/08/30-json-ld-irc#T16-47-45
17:02:18 <RRSAgent> ACTION: azaroth to email coralie regarding announcement at TPAC [3]
17:02:18 <RRSAgent>   recorded in https://www.w3.org/2019/08/30-json-ld-irc#T16-57-02
17:02:18 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees have been ivan, ajs6f, azaroth, dlongley, gkellogg, pchampin, bigbluehat, dlehn
17:02:18 <Zakim> Zakim has left #json-ld