16:30:15 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #json-ld
16:30:15 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2019/11/22-json-ld-irc
16:30:23 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #json-ld
16:30:33 <azaroth> rrsagent, set log public
16:30:40 <azaroth> Meeting: JSON-LD Working Group Telco
16:30:47 <azaroth> Date: 2019-11-22
16:31:14 <azaroth> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-json-ld-wg/2019Nov/0032.html
16:31:24 <azaroth> azaroth has changed the topic to: Agenda 2019-11-22: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-json-ld-wg/2019Nov/0032.html
16:31:34 <azaroth> Chair: azaroth
16:31:43 <azaroth> Regrets+ ivan
16:31:47 <azaroth> Regrets+ dlongley
16:31:51 <azaroth> Regrets+ gkellogg
16:33:45 <azaroth> zakim, this is JSON-LD
16:33:45 <Zakim> got it, azaroth
16:33:48 <azaroth> present+
16:47:30 <rubensworks> rubensworks has joined #json-ld
16:49:51 <pchampin> pchampin has joined #json-ld
17:00:17 <ajs6f> ajs6f has joined #json-ld
17:00:49 <bigbluehat> present+
17:01:06 <rubensworks> present+
17:01:43 <pchampin> present+
17:02:51 <hsolbrig> hsolbrig has joined #json-ld
17:03:03 <hsolbrig> present+ hsolbbrig
17:03:07 <hsolbrig> present+ hsolbrig
17:03:21 <azaroth> TOPIC: Scribe selection
17:03:34 <ajs6f> present+
17:03:44 <azaroth> TOPIC: Approve minutes
17:03:52 <chaals> chaals has joined #json-ld
17:03:56 <azaroth> PROPOSAL: Approve minutes of previous call https://www.w3.org/2018/json-ld-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2019/2019-11-15-json-ld
17:03:58 <azaroth> +1
17:03:59 <ajs6f> +1
17:04:00 <hsolbrig> +0
17:04:02 <pchampin> +1
17:04:02 <rubensworks> +0
17:04:10 <bigbluehat> +1
17:04:11 <azaroth> RESOLVED: Approve minutes of previous call https://www.w3.org/2018/json-ld-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2019/2019-11-15-json-ld
17:04:17 <azaroth> TOPIC: Announcements?
17:04:22 <rubensworks> scribe+
17:04:44 <azaroth> ...
17:04:50 <rubensworks> azaroth: We have the open call for concencus to go for CR.
17:04:52 <azaroth> TOPIC: Issues:
17:05:13 <azaroth> SUBTOPIC: embedding issue #300
17:05:14 <azaroth> https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-syntax/issues/300
17:05:14 <rubensworks> azaroth: All new issues are editorial, which is good for our transition to CR.
17:05:38 <rubensworks> ... The first one was about some confusion about how embedding worked.
17:05:54 <rubensworks> ... It was clarified in the issue, and there is a PR open to fix it.
17:06:19 <rubensworks> pchampin: Gregg and I both submitted a separate PR to fix this problem.
17:06:43 <rubensworks> ... But now we merged both of them. So this issue should be closed once the PR is merged.
17:06:53 <bigbluehat> https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-syntax/issues/300
17:07:00 <bigbluehat> https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-syntax/pull/307
17:07:33 <dlehn> present+
17:08:45 <rubensworks> ... The current sentence is wrong. The actual reason why embedding does not work is that nodes are unrelated to each other. So this is a reason to have `@graph` at the top level.
17:09:00 <rubensworks> ... I'll make a change suggestion on the PR. After that, we can close the issue if everyone agrees.
17:09:42 <rubensworks> azaroth: Part of the fix has been merged to master already, part of it not yet.
17:10:01 <rubensworks> ... Any further questions about issue 300?
17:10:44 <rubensworks> pchampin: PR 307 can be closed because the fix was part of another PR.
17:10:53 <rubensworks> azaroth: So issue 300 can be closed then.
17:11:05 <azaroth> SUBTOPIC: Stars on type on example 13
17:11:20 <rubensworks> azaroth: Next one is about the stars. This has been solved and is closed.
17:11:38 <azaroth> https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-syntax/issues/303
17:11:56 <azaroth> SUBTOPIC: Clarify language in JsonLdProcessor API
17:11:58 <rubensworks> ... Next, two issues on API.
17:12:04 <azaroth> https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-api/issues/212
17:12:32 <rubensworks> ... First one is about the use of WebIDL and the JavaScript-specific language that WebIDL has.
17:12:52 <azaroth> https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-api/issues/212#issuecomment-556476697
17:12:57 <rubensworks> ... The language talks about JS-specific promises to talk about asynchronous operations, while other languages may not have promises.
17:13:43 <rubensworks> ... Gregg already clarified that we settled with WebIDL, but we don't require promises, it's just a way to get it into WebIDL. Gregg suggested to add a note saying that you don't have to implement promises to do async operations.
17:14:13 <rubensworks> ... The way forward on this one is clear.
17:14:44 <azaroth> SUBTOPIC: Expansion with blank node mapped prefixes
17:14:46 <azaroth> https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-api/issues/219
17:15:34 <rubensworks> azaroth: On this next issue, the author started from scratch. So he saw something that does not usually occur in brand new implementations.
17:16:29 <rubensworks> ... If you have a blank node prefix without a non-gen-delim char at the end, it is expected to be used as a prefix in the tests, but the spec does not describe this stictly.
17:16:43 <rubensworks> ... We can't remove features, so we have to allow this.
17:17:02 <pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-api/issues/205
17:17:05 <rubensworks> pchampin: This seems related to a previous issue where this was discussed.
17:17:26 <rubensworks> ... Gregg came into a similar problem where a bnode was used as a prefix.
17:17:46 <rubensworks> ... I thought we settled on this, and marking those tests that rely on bnodes as prefixes as 1.0-only.
17:17:56 <rubensworks> ... In practise this is a breaking change in 1.1.
17:18:13 <rubensworks> ... At the time we agreed that anyone in their right mind would do this. So this wasn't a problem.
17:18:30 <rubensworks> ... I guess that the solution to this issue would be to mark this as a 1.0-only test as well.
17:18:53 <rubensworks> ... Not sure why Gregg didn't suggest this, perhaps he overlooked the link to the previous discussion.
17:19:02 <rubensworks> ... I will add it to the issue.
17:19:28 <rubensworks> azaroth: Those were the raised issues.
17:19:34 <azaroth> TOPIC: Process Issues
17:19:44 <azaroth> SUBTOPIC:  Transition to CR
17:20:11 <rubensworks> azaroth: We agreed on the last call that we would leave the call for concencus open until Monday.
17:20:44 <rubensworks> ... Today, we can have a resolution to go for CR if no one else puts in a -1 on the mailinglist before Monday.
17:20:59 <rubensworks> ... This allows Ivan to send it to the director then to request the transition.
17:22:06 <azaroth> PROPOSAL: In the absence of any objections before the close of the CfC, the WG resolves to transition to CR on Monday November 25th
17:22:11 <azaroth> +1
17:22:14 <rubensworks> +1
17:22:15 <pchampin> +1
17:22:18 <ajs6f> +1
17:22:19 <hsolbrig> +1
17:22:28 <timCole> timCole has joined #json-ld
17:22:37 <dlehn> +1
17:22:38 <bigbluehat> +1
17:22:43 <azaroth> RESOLVED: In the absence of any objections before the close of the CfC, the WG resolves to transition to CR on Monday November 25th
17:23:04 <azaroth> SUBTOPIC: Java implementation
17:23:11 <azaroth> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-json-ld-wg/2019Nov/0024.html
17:23:11 <rubensworks> azaroth: Thereb
17:23:36 <rubensworks> ... There was an e-mail to the list about the Java impl from David Booth, which prompted a little thread.
17:23:41 <timCole> present+
17:24:01 <rubensworks> ... There is a Java 1.1 impl that has 1/3 failing tests, which is good.
17:24:22 <rubensworks> ... They have similar reasons, so they may start working at the same time soon.
17:24:29 <rubensworks> ... Someone will start updating early next week.
17:24:43 <rubensworks> ... We always said we needed the Java impl as code.
17:25:34 <rubensworks> hsolbrig: We started to prototype the use of 1.1 in healthcare, and it's been successful, and the Java impl will be important for this.
17:25:52 <hsolbrig> Healthcare FHIR standard
17:25:56 <bigbluehat> q+
17:26:03 <azaroth> ack bigbluehat
17:26:39 <hsolbrig> q+
17:26:44 <rubensworks> bigbluehat: Next phase of this is that fabulous like this start happening, so we have to write things like blog posts to increase visibility.
17:26:59 <azaroth> SUBTOPIC: Best Practices Doc
17:27:09 <azaroth> ack hsolbrig
17:27:46 <rubensworks> hsolbrig: We're going to need a more approachable document, like a primer.
17:28:11 <rubensworks> azaroth: Where are we with BP?
17:28:18 <bigbluehat> https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-bp/pull/17
17:28:55 <rubensworks> bigbluehat: This PR restructures everything to make suggestions.
17:30:25 <azaroth> https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-bp/issues/1
17:30:29 <rubensworks> azaroth: This PR would close issue 1.
17:30:42 <ajs6f> https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-bp/issues/15
17:31:31 <rubensworks> bigbluehat: Several new sections, and API-related sections from 1.0.
17:32:00 <azaroth> +1 to removing non-spec practices
17:32:14 <rubensworks> ... My plan is to take the API-related things out, and capture the things that have come across in the last months.
17:32:32 <rubensworks> ... Any help on this is welcome.
17:32:48 <bigbluehat> https://w3c.github.io/json-ld-bp/
17:32:49 <rubensworks> bigbluehat: How should we look at the current document state.
17:33:00 <rubensworks> ... It is github-pages-based.
17:34:25 <rubensworks> azaroth: We should now look through what there is now. And propose new sections through issues, with some ticks on what the issue is.
17:34:49 <rubensworks> bigbluehat: If you don't have time, just write it down in an issue, and then we can figure out where to put it later.
17:35:24 <pchampin> q+
17:35:29 <azaroth> ack pchampin
17:35:31 <rubensworks> azaroth: We have some time left, so let's brainstorm on some issues.
17:35:46 <rubensworks> pchampin: I just realized that Gregg mentioned in his regrets something.
17:36:08 <rubensworks> ... He said that there may be a WG decision needed.
17:36:18 <azaroth> TOPIC: API #219 redux
17:36:33 <rubensworks> ... he would be more comfortable to keep the spec text as-is, and that we are introducing a breaking change in a note.
17:36:56 <rubensworks> ... He wants to record this as a decision.
17:37:13 <bigbluehat> gkellog's note about #219 https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-json-ld-wg/2019Nov/0033.html
17:37:34 <rubensworks> azaroth: We're stuck with it, especially as we plan to go for CR.
17:38:15 <rubensworks> pchampin: He wants to keep the spec as-is, but mark the tests as 1.0-only, and continue on the same path.
17:38:30 <rubensworks> ... Nobody is affected by this change.
17:39:19 <rubensworks> bigbluehat: It was an accidental feature in 1.0.
17:39:44 <rubensworks> azaroth: So it is not a breaking change, but a clarification that this should never have been possible.
17:40:35 <rubensworks> bigbluehat: It would be good to see where this can actually be used. And if it has widely been used in practise. Probably no one did.
17:41:04 <rubensworks> pchampin: If we want to support it now, we would have to change some normative text right before CR.
17:41:08 <rubensworks> bigbluehat: This won't happen.
17:41:11 <azaroth> q?
17:42:22 <azaroth> PROPOSAL: Keep the current text as clarification that blank node as prefix was never intended to be a feature, just a side effect of loose 1.0 text
17:43:10 <rubensworks> azaroth: If there was a test, it was supposed to be a feature, right?
17:43:25 <bigbluehat> https://json-ld.org/playground/#startTab=tab-expanded&json-ld=%7B%22%40context%22%3A%7B%22%40vocab%22%3A%22_%3A%22%2C%22term%22%3A%22term%22%7D%2C%22term%22%3A%22hi%22%7D
17:43:59 <bigbluehat> {"@context": {"@vocab": "_:", "term": "term"}, "term": "hi"}
17:44:10 <uskudarli> uskudarli has joined #json-ld
17:44:34 <rubensworks> bigbluehat: This case will occur when someone when someone without much knowledge of jsonld will use it.
17:45:08 <rubensworks> pchampin: The alternative would be to go for Gregg's proposal, to add a sentence to explicitly allow that.
17:45:13 <azaroth> {
17:45:14 <azaroth>   "@context": {
17:45:14 <azaroth>     "@vocab": "_:",
17:45:16 <azaroth>     "term": "term",
17:45:17 <azaroth>     "pre": "_:pre",
17:45:19 <azaroth>     "fix": "pre:fix"
17:45:21 <azaroth>   },
17:45:23 <azaroth>   "term": "hi",
17:45:25 <rubensworks> ... This is normative text. That's meaning that's already carried by the tests.
17:45:26 <azaroth>   "fix": "me please"
17:45:28 <azaroth> }
17:45:31 <azaroth> -->
17:45:32 <bigbluehat> the extension use case `{"@context": [{"@vocab": "_:"}, {"term": "term"}], "term": "hi"}`
17:45:33 <azaroth> "_:prefix": [
17:45:35 <azaroth>       {
17:45:37 <azaroth>         "@value": "me please"
17:45:39 <azaroth>       }
17:45:41 <azaroth>     ],
17:45:50 <rubensworks> azaroth: The prefix thing is what's currently broken.
17:46:48 <rubensworks> ... Currently, this case above works in 1.0, but not in 1.1 when you implement it from scratch.
17:47:07 <rubensworks> ... If people don't remove it from their 1.1 impls, we would have inconsistencies.
17:47:32 <rubensworks> ... I think we should fix the typo which removes this feature unintentionally. Even if it is a stupid feature.
17:48:25 <pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-api/blob/master/tests/expand/0118-in.jsonld#L31
17:48:34 <rubensworks> pchampin: The previous issue was raised by Gregg. The mention the test (above).
17:48:49 <rubensworks> ... (wrong test)
17:49:19 <bigbluehat> an updated extension example (based on azaroth's) `{"@context": [{"@vocab": "_:"}, {"pre": "pre", "fix": "pre:fix"}], "pre": "hi", "fix": "thing"}`
17:49:28 <azaroth> https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-api/blob/master/tests/toRdf/0118-in.jsonld
17:50:45 <rubensworks> azaroth: This is the test that checks term appended to bnode.
17:50:47 <bigbluehat> 1+
17:50:52 <bigbluehat> s/1+//
17:50:57 <bigbluehat> q+
17:52:50 <rubensworks> azaroth: I think that if someone would come to us an say that this test was supposed to be 1.0, but there was no resolution saying that this was a 1.0-only feature, and no errata. I would have a hard time explaining why this feature was removed from 1.0, even though it is stupid.
17:52:58 <pchampin> q+
17:53:02 <azaroth> ack bigbluehat
17:53:07 <rubensworks> ... We want to avoid changing the API spec.
17:53:38 <rubensworks> bigbluehat: I'm confused to see how it was an accident while it has tests.
17:54:23 <rubensworks> azaroth: I becomes harded to implement, and it is a case that no one will use.
17:54:33 <rubensworks> ... We said we wouldn't introduce incompabilities.
17:54:41 <bigbluehat> q+ to suggest we add it into API spec (as missed errata), but mark it at risk and remove it when no one implements it
17:54:50 <azaroth> ack pchampin
17:54:54 <rubensworks> ... We should say we are fixing a typo, which removes an unintentional feature.
17:55:17 <rubensworks> pchampin: I think gregg and dave's concern about explicitly allowing that, would make the spec text more complicated.
17:55:46 <rubensworks> ... In 1.0, nothing was required to allow it. While our 1.1 text would need to explicitly state that it is not allowed.
17:55:53 <rubensworks> ... I also think we should fix the typo.
17:55:56 <azaroth> ack bigbluehat
17:55:56 <Zakim> bigbluehat, you wanted to suggest we add it into API spec (as missed errata), but mark it at risk and remove it when no one implements it
17:56:45 <rubensworks> bigbluehat: Does it make sense to use the at-risk process, and have the implementors in the room, and remove at-risk if all implementors agree?
17:57:53 <rubensworks> azaroth: In the 1.0 spec, there wasn't any text saying that you should be able to do this?
17:57:59 <rubensworks> pchampin: I will look into it.
17:58:39 <rubensworks> azaroth: If the normative 1.0 spec didn't say that you can do this, we can remove it, as the tests are not normative.
17:58:48 <rubensworks> ... But we need to be sure that the spec did not say it.
17:58:56 <rubensworks> ... We can try the at-risk "trick".
17:59:00 <timCole> q+
17:59:06 <azaroth> ack timCole
17:59:35 <rubensworks> timCole: If there was a test for 1.0, do we have a case where an implementor supported this?
17:59:54 <rubensworks> azaroth: Tests got run to prove implementations.
18:00:04 <rubensworks> bigbluehat: It's working now in the playground.
18:00:18 <dlehn> pyld passed all 1.0 tests at one point too
18:00:40 <azaroth> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/json-ld/raw-file/default/test-suite/reports/cr-20131022.html#transform-json-ld-to-rdf
18:00:44 <rubensworks> azaroth: There are 9 implementations passing the test.
18:01:02 <rubensworks> ... That's hard to argue against.
18:01:37 <timCole> +1
18:01:41 <rubensworks> ... We should not put at-risk, and fix the unintentional removal of the feature.
18:02:28 <azaroth> PROPOSAL: Fix the typo in API to reinstate the ability to append terms to blank node prefixes, such that test to-rdf/0118 should pass
18:02:37 <bigbluehat> +1
18:02:44 <azaroth> +1
18:02:47 <pchampin> +1
18:02:47 <rubensworks> +1
18:02:51 <timCole> +1
18:02:56 <ajs6f> +0.5
18:03:31 <azaroth> RESOLVED: Fix the typo in API to reinstate the ability to append terms to blank node prefixes, such that test to-rdf/0118 should pass
18:04:06 <bigbluehat> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/json-ld/raw-file/default/test-suite/reports/cr-20131022.html#test_62d35540b74360eb216acec8dd0298fa
18:04:15 <bigbluehat> "Triples with blank node predicates are not dropped if the produce generalized RDF flag is true."
18:04:36 <rubensworks> bigbluehat: The issue that I posted seems to indicate that there was a purpose for this.
18:04:47 <azaroth> q?
18:06:02 <azaroth> TOPIC: Adjourn
18:06:11 <ajs6f> ajs6f has left #json-ld
18:06:23 <azaroth> rrsagent, draft minutes
18:06:23 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/11/22-json-ld-minutes.html azaroth
18:06:28 <azaroth> rrsagent, set log public
18:07:00 <azaroth> rrsagent, bye
18:07:00 <RRSAgent> I see no action items