15:28:07 RRSAgent has joined #json-ld 15:28:07 logging to https://www.w3.org/2019/09/06-json-ld-irc 15:28:08 rrsagent, set log public 15:28:08 Meeting: JSON-LD Working Group Telco 15:28:08 Date: 2019-09-06 15:28:08 Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-json-ld-wg/2019Sep/0000.html 15:28:08 ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2019-09-06: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-json-ld-wg/2019Sep/0000.html 15:28:09 Regrets+ 15:28:09 Chair: azaroth 15:31:37 azaroth has joined #json-ld 15:35:36 present+ 15:46:06 rubensworks has joined #json-ld 15:46:39 gkellogg has joined #json-ld 15:50:33 pchampin has joined #json-ld 15:52:20 ajs6f has joined #json-ld 15:59:24 present+ 16:00:26 present+ 16:00:30 present+ 16:00:35 present+ 16:00:40 present+ 16:02:03 present+ 16:02:24 chair+ bigbluehat 16:02:24 present+ 16:02:37 I can!@ 16:02:43 scribenick: ajs6f 16:02:51 Topic: Approve minutes of previous call 16:02:56 https://www.w3.org/2018/json-ld-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2019/2019-08-30-json-ld 16:03:01 +1 16:03:02 +1 16:03:03 +1 16:03:03 +1 16:03:05 +0 16:03:05 +1 16:03:12 +1 16:03:19 RESOLVED: minutes approved 16:03:33 Topic: Announcements / Reminders 16:03:35 s/minutes/last week's minites/ 16:03:41 s/minites/minutes/ 16:03:45 Subtopic: No call next week 16:04:06 Subtopic: TPAC following week 16:04:10 present+ 16:04:33 bligbluehat: no call next week because of TPAC 16:04:42 s/blig/big/ 16:05:02 https://www.w3.org/2018/json-ld-wg/Meetings/F2F/2019.09.Fuk 16:06:38 Subtopic: Others? 16:06:47 q+ 16:06:50 ack pchampin 16:06:54 jeff_mixter has joined #json-ld 16:06:58 present+ 16:07:16 pchampin: we have a funded WoT project starting in February 16:07:24 ... might be some JSON-LD interest 16:07:47 ... I was wondering if we still want a note that mentions this 16:07:56 ... might some people in this porject that might contriburte to that 16:08:07 s/contriburte/contribute 16:08:12 ivan: just a note, not a rec 16:08:30 ... no problem publishing that if we can get it in before closing teh WG 16:08:35 s/teh/the 16:08:43 bigbluehat: still some time to do that 16:09:00 ivan: how much time we have to do this depends on how we manage time generally 16:09:15 ... we have until June or July and a note can be published at the very end 16:09:24 ... we're in pretty good shape re: testing and impl 16:09:33 ... we may need less time to complete CR stagte 16:09:40 s/stagte/stage 16:09:49 ... we could publish early and close the group early 16:10:24 gkellogg: thinking about the YAML note, we automated the transformations 16:10:30 ... CBOR might or might not be 16:10:51 ... as easy 16:10:58 ivan: not likely to be as easy 16:11:16 gkellogg: you can dump JSON into CBOR, altho it does many other things 16:11:32 ... other than number representation I'm not sure there is much of a barrier 16:11:49 ... more important is the transform CBOR -> JSON 16:12:02 ... if there are people with experience at CBOR who want to help, we should keep that open 16:12:12 ... unless/until we learn that we don't have enough time 16:12:22 bigbluehat: and of course we have the Best Practices doc 16:12:36 pchampin: okay, I'll ask those folks and see if anyone is into it 16:12:44 ... before TPAC 16:12:53 Topic: Horizontal Review Updates 16:13:30 link: https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-wg/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Ahorizontal-review 16:13:47 azaroth: we're in good shape 16:13:59 ... we have alerted Accessibility folks 16:14:05 ... we've done their checklist 16:14:12 ... ty bigbluehat 16:14:20 ... I've told Privacy that we thikn we are in good shape 16:14:39 ... they responded with thanks and no further issues 16:14:50 ... ivan, what's the process from here? 16:15:07 ivan: tag it as done and when we write a request to go to CR we can point to it 16:15:20 azaroth: DONE 16:16:05 azaroth: we did the Security questionairre in June 16:16:15 ... I pinged them a few times with no response 16:16:38 ... and latterly I told them we consider it done, but if they have any concerns to raise them with us at TPAC 16:16:42 ... I heard nothing back 16:16:50 ... I say we call this done 16:17:02 ivan: that works, and the same goes for Internationalization 16:17:17 azaroth: we are good, even if we only got one official signoff 16:17:25 ivan: what about Accessibility 16:17:40 bigbluehat: I've heard no problems from them 16:17:54 ... I bet someone will catch us in the hallway at TPAC and tell us that we are fine 16:18:03 ivan: we're probably low on thei priorities 16:18:33 azaroth: if avnish (sp?) can work with it that seems like as good an Acceissiblity review as we get 16:18:49 ivan: no he looks only at the accessibility of the docs themselves 16:18:55 ... different question 16:19:05 s/avnish/Avneesh/ 16:19:11 ... that's not the same as true review of the rec itself and problems that might arise from its use 16:19:39 azaroth: finally we have the short names issue 16:19:46 https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-wg/issues/103 16:19:50 ivan: it turns out we can do what we wanted 16:20:14 ... when we publish the rec from that point on JSON-LD with no qualifier will point at the latest rec 16:20:43 ... you can also do JSON-LD/latest and there are some other combinations, look at the issue for details 16:20:55 ... but our most important point is that LSON-LD itself will point at the latest 16:21:17 azaroth: I put together some nice stats for Karly (sp?) 16:21:24 ... she said they were great 16:21:34 s/Karly/Coralie/ 16:21:37 ... and added them to the Members' update for September 16:22:20 ivan: I also spoke with her and she was happy for the info and put it various Members' comms 16:22:32 ... I think she might put together a slide for Jeff 16:22:56 gkellogg: too many TPACs have gone by that would make you think that the only thing W3C does is HTML 16:23:11 azaroth: at the last one the Wed was disheartening 16:23:16 ... we can turn that around 16:23:22 q? 16:23:41 TOPIC: Issues 16:23:58 SUBTOPIC: Framing blank nodes 16:24:24 azaroth: last discussion we agreed that we couldn't solve it on a call 16:24:33 ... so gkellog and dlongley went off to look at it 16:25:04 gkellogg: we found a problem in a framing test where @container : @graph got mangled in re-expansion 16:25:12 ... a bug in the compaction algo 16:25:46 ... if the value is an array, it puts them in an @include block 16:26:21 s/@include/`@include`/ 16:26:21 ... i tried [s solution] but it turned out not to be defined well enough 16:26:35 s/`@include`/`@included`/ 16:26:48 q? 16:26:57 azaroth: all of that is solved and merged? 16:27:00 gkellogg: yep 16:27:21 q? 16:28:50 https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-api/pull/146 16:29:02 https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-api/pull/145 16:29:15 PROPOSAL: Close framing #27 as not being the issue, and the real issues being addressed is api #143, solved by api # 145 and #146 16:29:24 +1 16:29:25 +1 16:29:28 +1 16:29:30 +1 16:29:32 +1 16:29:37 +1 16:29:40 RESOLVE: Close framing #27 as not being the issue, and the real issues being addressed is api #143, solved by api # 145 and #146 16:29:45 +1 16:29:54 +1 16:30:07 PROPOSAL: Close api #143 as resolved by api #145 and #146 16:30:11 +1 16:30:12 +1 16:30:13 +1 16:30:14 +1 16:30:14 +1 16:30:14 +1 16:30:16 +1 16:30:21 +1 16:30:28 RESOLVED: Close api #143 as resolved by api #145 and #146 16:31:04 https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-syntax/issues 16:31:07 azaroth: now lookig at syntax issues 16:31:20 ... we have two that are really styling 16:31:30 ... and two that we have already deferred 16:31:36 https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-api/issues 16:31:38 .... no open non-defferred issues for syntax 16:31:48 ... for API we have two open non-deferred issues 16:32:05 https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-framing/issues 16:32:23 ... for framing we have issue 7 and two that we deferred to future versions 16:32:36 https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-wg/issues 16:32:38 ... in the WG metalist of issues 16:32:50 .. just some editorial updates on bigbluehat and myself 16:33:06 ... there are the horizontal reviews and short names issue that we talked thorugh earlier 16:33:51 ivan: what guiding principles document? 16:34:00 azaroth: the one from the very beginning 16:34:18 ... we never adding things like horizontal review to those guiding principles, but it's a bit late 16:34:43 ivan: I see something "updating json-ld.org" on bigbluehat 16:34:45 q+ 16:34:58 ack pchampin 16:34:59 bigbluehat: I will work on that before TR-- it's in the CG 16:35:22 q+ 16:35:35 pchampin: there is no recorded issue about the fact that the specs for 1.1 refer to 1.0 docs via the short name JSON-LD, without qualifier 16:35:37 ack gkellogg 16:35:39 gkellogg: I think I fixed that 16:35:52 pchampin: perhaps I wasn't seeing the latest versions 16:36:00 gkellogg: yes, I used the timestmaped URI 16:36:14 ... what Respec does for JSON-LD uses the unversioned URI 16:36:28 ... which would have had that problem when we updated 16:36:47 ... and our internal links already use precise URIs 16:36:52 pchampin: okay, all good! 16:37:25 gkellogg: Respec does keep breaking and marcus said he would fix these things 16:37:35 ... once those are done we can publiush another heartbeat draft 16:37:38 q? 16:37:39 ... that might it for us 16:38:13 ivan: it might be good to look for a "preview CR" request, to see what we need for that 16:38:19 ACTION: ivan to send to -chairs example CR request 16:38:41 azaroth: after which we can look at the example and work with it 16:38:44 ... other issues? 16:38:53 https://raw.githack.com/w3c/json-ld-api/reports/reports/index.html#JSON-LD-HTML-tests 16:39:14 azaroth: I mean any new technical issues 16:39:34 ... if not, we're done with technical issues and we'll spend TPAC carousing wildly 16:39:43 ... we'll request CR after TPAC 16:39:55 ... we need to get people to get onto implementation 16:40:04 ... and submitting reports thereof 16:40:19 ... that al conform to some part of the work 16:40:33 ... and for all features there are at least 2 impls that do that 16:40:46 ... which is not to say that any given impl must do all features-- that's not true 16:40:55 TOPIC: Implementation Report 16:40:57 https://raw.githack.com/w3c/json-ld-api/reports/reports/index.html 16:41:25 gkellogg: I have software to collate the reports that get sent in and generate this file 16:41:39 ... this includes all the tests that were included 16:41:58 ... at the beginning there is a discussion of requirements for subimssions 16:42:24 ... submissions are found in a directory which is processed by the software 16:42:44 ... producing an HTML output with a column for each impl and each test the result obtained 16:43:12 ... there are details like test options that we don't find here 16:43:15 q+ 16:43:19 ... it is many pages 16:43:24 ack ivan 16:43:37 q+ re test definitions 16:43:41 ivan: I have seen this type of product from gkellogg before and I thikn it's perfect 16:43:44 add a browser stress test and add syntax highlighting for all the tests input/output 16:44:29 ... i understand that the tests in this report cover all of JSON-LD< including 1.0 stuff 16:44:40 gkellogg: we have 1.0 stuff, 1.1 stuff, and both 16:44:59 ... we don't include 1.0 stuff, just stuff that is relavent for both 16:45:45 ... we test the entire behavior 16:46:01 ivan: is it worth indicating what's new? the stuff that is new in 1.1? 16:46:13 azaroth: seems valuable 16:46:17 gkellogg: the data is there 16:46:27 ... we could annotate the tests as appropriate 16:46:40 ack azaroth 16:46:40 azaroth, you wanted to discuss test definitions 16:46:48 ivan: in the column for test you could add a symbol to indicate something new for 1.1 16:47:06 azaroth: for test defns, which are quite long, could we make it a separate HTML file? 16:47:13 ... rather than including it in-line 16:47:29 gkellogg: or we could create HTML test manifests and link to them 16:47:58 ... in json-ld.org we had some PHP that listed out the tests 16:48:23 ... we could do something template-driven to the same purpose 16:48:31 q+ 16:48:39 ack dlehn 16:48:41 ... then we update the report so that the test links point at the right places int eh test manifestos 16:49:00 dlehn: shold we not put the version numbers of the various libraries on their? 16:49:06 ... support changes with time. 16:49:53 gkellogg: if you look in "What to Submit" we could put a slot for version and then use that in the "Descrption of test subject" 16:50:15 dlehn: did the URI format change much? 16:50:20 gkellogg: nope, same thing 16:50:25 ACTION: gkellogg to add software version DOAP property to report template 16:50:31 dlehn: what does it do if you skip tests? 16:50:40 gkellogg: I think it says something like "Untested" 16:50:48 ACTION: gkellogg to look at taking out test definitions and replacing with links to test manifests 16:50:57 ... there is Pass, Fail and some other statuses 16:51:14 q+ re dogfood of JSON-LD and Turtle 16:51:28 .... doesn't matter than much what the current level of conformance but we could grease the wheel 16:51:35 ack azaroth 16:51:35 azaroth, you wanted to discuss dogfood of JSON-LD and Turtle 16:51:39 dlehn: python code hasn't yet been updated 16:52:03 azaroth: it currently asks people to submit Turtle-- could we make that JSON-LD 16:52:10 gkellogg: sure, we could 16:52:32 ... but devs seem happy with Turtle 16:52:43 ... but I would work with JSON-LD if someone gives it to me 16:52:43 q? 16:54:19 TOPIC: TPAC face to face arrangements 16:54:53 q+ 16:54:56 ack bigbluehat 16:55:44 [shared discussion of travel arrangements] 16:58:08 azaroth: has anyone asked for Observer status? 16:58:16 ivan: not that I saw, and you would have been notified 16:58:52 gkellogg: shoudl we arrange a Wed update for people? 16:59:03 azaroth: given where we are at, that seems reasonable 16:59:08 https://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC/2019/SessionIdeas 16:59:19 ivan: wait I was wrong! 16:59:21 https://www.w3.org/register/tpac2019/registrants#meeting-85 16:59:21 ACTION: gkellogg to add session idea for https://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC/2019/SessionIdeas 16:59:30 ... there are quite a nnumber of requestors 16:59:30 https://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC/2019/SessionIdeas#Linked_Data_Security <-- may be of interest to people here 16:59:44 q+ 17:00:18 ack dlongley 17:00:25 ivan: experience shows that people do sin up but rarely stay around 17:00:44 dlongely: manu is trying to put together a LD security topic on Wed 17:01:00 ivan: and the DID WG has been announced 17:01:17 ivan: dlongley, you will be on it? 17:01:20 dlongely: yep 17:01:32 azaroth: I will try to participate 17:01:42 ivan:bigbluehat is signed up 17:02:04 ... and two guys coming, registered as group participants, who have never been on any of our calls 17:02:17 .... someone frmo Siemens and somone from [Didn't catch the name] 17:02:29 pchampin: I don't know them well but met one 17:02:50 azaroth: and it's the top of the hour. See (some of) you in japan 17:02:59 ivan: we will have a call the week after TPAC 17:03:14 TOPIC: Adjourn 17:03:25 rrsagent, draft minutes 17:03:25 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/09/06-json-ld-minutes.html ivan 17:03:25 zakim, bye 17:03:25 rrsagent, bye 17:03:25 I see 4 open action items saved in https://www.w3.org/2019/09/06-json-ld-actions.rdf : 17:03:25 ACTION: ivan to send to -chairs example CR request [1] 17:03:25 recorded in https://www.w3.org/2019/09/06-json-ld-irc#T16-38-19 17:03:25 ACTION: gkellogg to add software version DOAP property to report template [2] 17:03:25 recorded in https://www.w3.org/2019/09/06-json-ld-irc#T16-50-25 17:03:25 ACTION: gkellogg to look at taking out test definitions and replacing with links to test manifests [3] 17:03:25 recorded in https://www.w3.org/2019/09/06-json-ld-irc#T16-50-48 17:03:25 ACTION: gkellogg to add session idea for https://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC/2019/SessionIdeas [4] 17:03:25 recorded in https://www.w3.org/2019/09/06-json-ld-irc#T16-59-21-1 17:03:25 leaving. As of this point the attendees have been azaroth, ivan, dlongley, rubensworks, bigbluehat, gkellogg, ajs6f, pchampin, dlehn, jeff_mixter 17:03:25 Zakim has left #json-ld