16:07:03 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #json-ld
16:07:03 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2019/12/13-json-ld-irc
16:07:04 <ivan> rrsagent, set log public
16:07:04 <ivan> Meeting: JSON-LD Working Group Telco
16:07:04 <ivan> Date: 2019-12-13
16:07:04 <ivan> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-json-ld-wg/2019Dec/0006.html
16:07:04 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2019-12-13: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-json-ld-wg/2019Dec/0006.html
16:07:05 <ivan> Chair: azaroth
16:07:05 <ivan> Regrets+ dlongley
16:37:48 <azaroth> azaroth has joined #json-ld
16:45:32 <ivan> regrets+ ajs6f
16:59:24 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #json-ld
16:59:41 <pchampin> pchampin has joined #json-ld
17:00:19 <gkellogg> present+
17:00:53 <azaroth> present+
17:01:04 <pchampin> present+
17:01:14 <timCole> timCole has joined #json-ld
17:01:24 <hsolbrig> hsolbrig has joined #json-ld
17:01:30 <hsolbrig> present+
17:01:47 <ivan> present+
17:02:24 <azaroth> TOPIC: Scribe Selection
17:02:26 <bigbluehat> present+
17:02:33 <timCole> present+
17:03:02 <azaroth> scribenick: pchampin
17:03:09 <dlehn> present+
17:03:11 <azaroth> TOPIC: Approve minutes of previous call
17:03:20 <azaroth> PROPOSAL Approve minutes of previous call: https://www.w3.org/2018/json-ld-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2019/2019-12-06-json-ld
17:03:22 <azaroth> +1
17:03:23 <gkellogg> +1
17:03:26 <bigbluehat> +1
17:03:26 <hsolbrig> +1
17:03:27 <pchampin> +1
17:03:29 <ivan> +1
17:03:30 <dlehn> +1
17:03:34 <azaroth> RESOLVED: Approve minutes of previous call: https://www.w3.org/2018/json-ld-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2019/2019-12-06-json-ld
17:03:39 <azaroth> TOPIC: Announcements
17:03:52 <pchampin> azaroth: CR was published!
17:03:56 <azaroth> https://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld11/
17:04:23 <gkellogg> https://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld/ now points to 1.1 CR
17:04:31 <pchampin> ... thanks to everyone invoved in the process.
17:04:48 <pchampin> gkellogg: TR/json-ld/ also now points to the CR
17:05:03 <gkellogg> https://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld1/
17:05:16 <pchampin> ... TR/json-ld1/ points to the 1.0 REC
17:05:52 <pchampin> ... I would have expected TR/json-ld10/, but it does not work
17:06:27 <azaroth> ACTION ivan to contact webmaster about json-ld10 link
17:06:37 <azaroth> ACTION: ivan to contact webmaster about json-ld10 link
17:06:38 <pchampin> dlehn: we should be careful what json-ld.org points to as "recommendations"
17:07:19 <azaroth> q?
17:07:22 <ivan> q+
17:07:24 <pchampin> ... also TR/json-ld-api/ returns a 404
17:07:25 <azaroth> ack ivan
17:08:00 <pchampin> ivan: I sent a mail to emphasize how we should process changes now.
17:08:28 <pchampin> ... editorial changes are ok, as long as we give the correct flag to echidna.
17:09:25 <gkellogg> - curl "https://labs.w3.org/echidna/api/request" --data "url=$URL" --data "decision=$DECISION" --data "token=$TOKEN"
17:09:32 <ivan> https://github.com/w3c/echidna/wiki/CR-publication-workflow
17:09:47 <pchampin> ... gkellogg, you should take care of that, I am not comfortable with changing your configuration.
17:10:14 <azaroth> q+ to suggest every issue from now should have a resolution
17:11:04 <pchampin> ivan: if we have more substantial changes, we must again submit to the director
17:11:04 <azaroth> ack azaroth
17:11:04 <Zakim> azaroth, you wanted to suggest every issue from now should have a resolution
17:11:23 <pchampin> ... and such changes must be thoroughly documented
17:12:01 <pchampin> gkellogg: every PR for an issue must refer to a resolution (by email or on a call)
17:12:06 <azaroth> q?
17:13:35 <bigbluehat> q+
17:13:46 <azaroth> ack bigbluehat
17:14:00 <pchampin> ivan: we had some discussion offline about writing a blog post;
17:14:07 <pchampin> ...  I think that this should be done by the chairs
17:14:57 <pchampin> gkellogg: I have a text ready, I can put it on my blog
17:15:17 <pchampin> bigbluehat: I am also happy with publishing gkellogg's text
17:15:24 <azaroth> ACTION: bigbluehat to make google doc to co-edit, to be posted next week
17:15:35 <pchampin> azaroth: let's copy gkellogg's text in a google doc and work on it,
17:15:41 <pchampin> ... and get it published by monday
17:15:48 <azaroth> TOPIC: Issues
17:16:03 <azaroth> SUBTOPIC: XHTML vs HTML
17:16:12 <azaroth> https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-api/issues/244
17:16:55 <ivan> q+
17:17:21 <pchampin> azaroth: gkellogg objected that XHTML is not an active spec
17:17:25 <azaroth> ack ivan
17:17:47 <pchampin> ... but the author or the issue noted that application/xhtml+xml is one of the content-types specified for HTML 5.2
17:18:17 <pchampin> ivan: my initial reaction was the same as gkellogg, but the latest argument is compelling
17:18:17 <azaroth> https://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld11-api/#dfn-html-script-extraction
17:18:38 <pchampin> ... but since both content-types are for the same format,
17:18:43 <gkellogg> q+
17:19:00 <pchampin> ... all we have to do is add "or 'application/xhtml+xml'" whenever we mention 'text/html'
17:19:31 <azaroth> ack gkellogg
17:19:35 <pchampin> ... Also, epub still refers to XHTML.
17:19:59 <pchampin> gkellogg: my concern was that XHTML 1.0 would use different encoding for scripts.
17:20:18 <pchampin> ... If this is just about accepting 'application/xhtml+xml' for HTML5, this is not a problem.
17:20:50 <pchampin> ... I would rather not wait on this thing. It is easy to get lost.
17:21:11 <pchampin> ivan: if we want to republish something between now and end of CR,
17:21:30 <pchampin> ... this is borderline to substantial change.
17:22:00 <pchampin> gkellogg: we will have the same problems with other issues.
17:22:23 <pchampin> ivan: many things that will come up are hopefully editorial.
17:23:08 <pchampin> azaroth: given the other issues, we will probably want to update the CR.
17:24:11 <pchampin> ... considering this is day 1, and we already have a list of issues and associated PRs.
17:24:17 <gkellogg> q+
17:24:33 <pchampin> ivan: we are not talking about going back to WD.
17:24:49 <azaroth> ack gkellogg
17:24:50 <pchampin> ... but we need to go to the director again if we make non-substantial changes.
17:25:05 <pchampin> gkellogg: last week we resolved that changes in the text of the algorithms
17:25:13 <pchampin> ... that does not change the result of any test suite,
17:25:14 <gkellogg> https://www.w3.org/2018/json-ld-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2019/2019-12-06-json-ld#resolution3
17:25:19 <pchampin> ... would be considered editorial.
17:25:46 <pchampin> azaroth: but surely we were referring the existing test suite
17:26:12 <pchampin> gkellogg: dlehn proposed to add new tests, to address some corner cases
17:26:39 <pchampin> ... I thing resolution3 is about "not changing the result of any existing test"
17:27:12 <azaroth> PROPOSAL: We accept that syntax and api should also refer to XHTML where they refer to text/html
17:27:17 <gkellogg> +1
17:27:18 <ivan> +1
17:27:19 <azaroth> +1
17:27:22 <hsolbrig> +1
17:27:23 <pchampin> +1
17:27:24 <dlehn> +1
17:27:29 <bigbluehat> +1
17:27:38 <azaroth> RESOLVED: We accept that syntax and api should also refer to XHTML where they refer to text/html
17:27:52 <azaroth> SUBTOPIC: JSON-LD featuring JSON featuring JSON-LD test
17:28:07 <azaroth> https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-api/issues/237
17:28:38 <pchampin> dlehn: a literal JSON can contain JSON-LD (e.g. a `@context` key)
17:28:54 <pchampin> ... we need to make sure that processors do *not* try to process that
17:29:49 <pchampin> azaroth: this is only editorial; the text already says "do not touch this"
17:30:07 <azaroth> PROPOSAL: Accept test for JSON-LD embedded in JSON to test suite (no editorial action)
17:30:14 <azaroth> +1
17:30:14 <pchampin> dlehn: how should we process such issues?
17:30:22 <ivan> +1
17:30:24 <timCole> +1
17:30:27 <pchampin> ivan: I don't think we should use meeting time for this
17:30:34 <hsolbrig> +1
17:30:36 <dlehn> +1
17:30:39 <pchampin> +1
17:30:42 <azaroth> RESOLVED: Accept test for JSON-LD embedded in JSON to test suite (no editorial action)
17:30:43 <gkellogg> +1
17:31:04 <pchampin> azaroth: but we need to point to a resolution in the PR solving the issue
17:31:07 <azaroth> SUBTOPIC: Return of the adding an entry step
17:31:13 <azaroth> https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-api/issues/243
17:31:44 <azaroth> https://w3c.github.io/json-ld-api/#expansion-algorithm
17:31:58 <pchampin> azaroth: in the expansion algorithm, step 13.4.4 and 13.4.5
17:32:03 <pchampin> ... there is the same text repeated
17:32:13 <pchampin> ... looks like a copy-paste error
17:32:31 <azaroth> PROPOSAL: remove repeated text from expansion 13.4.4.4
17:32:39 <gkellogg> +1
17:32:41 <hsolbrig> +1
17:32:42 <azaroth> +1
17:32:43 <timCole> +1
17:32:47 <dlehn> +1
17:32:54 <pchampin> +1
17:32:59 <bigbluehat> +!
17:33:01 <bigbluehat> +1
17:33:03 <azaroth> RESOLVED: remove repeated text from expansion 13.4.4.4
17:33:16 <pchampin> s/13.4.4 and 13.4.5/13.4.4.4 and 13.4.4.5/
17:33:21 <azaroth> SUBTOPIC:  @graph, @set
17:33:23 <azaroth> https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-api/issues/242
17:34:38 <pchampin> azaroth: `"@container": ["@graph", "@set"]` is used in a test, but the text of the algorithm implies that it is illegal
17:35:24 <pchampin> gkellogg: this is an ommision in the algorithm in the list of things allowed with `@graph`
17:35:42 <pchampin> ... the normative section of the syntax does allow this combination
17:35:49 <gkellogg> http://localhost:8000/?specStatus=CR&publishDate=2019-12-12#expanded-term-definition
17:36:02 <pchampin> https://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld11/#expanded-term-definition
17:36:31 <azaroth> > If the expanded term definition contains the @container keyword, its value MUST be either @list, @set, @language, @index, @id, @graph, @type, or be null or an array containing exactly any one of those keywords, or a combination of @set and any of @index, @id, @graph, @type, @language in any order
17:36:51 <pchampin> azaroth: so the API and Syntax documents are out of sync
17:37:56 <pchampin> gkellogg: there was examples specifically added about it
17:38:28 <azaroth> PROPOSAL: Update api Create Term Definition step to allow the set of combinations from syntax 9.15.1
17:38:32 <gkellogg> +1
17:38:33 <azaroth> +1
17:38:36 <dlehn> +1
17:38:38 <ivan> 0
17:38:38 <timCole> +1
17:38:39 <hsolbrig> +1
17:38:40 <bigbluehat> +1
17:38:45 <pchampin> +1
17:38:56 <azaroth> RESOLVED: Update api Create Term Definition step to allow the set of combinations from syntax 9.15.1
17:39:20 <azaroth> SUBTOPIC: Create Term Definition 16.1 needs more indents
17:39:32 <azaroth> https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-api/issues/241
17:40:09 <pchampin> gkellog: we add some text in 16.1 to retain the information that `@id` has value `null`
17:40:25 <pchampin> s/add/added§
17:40:27 <pchampin> s/add/added/
17:40:38 <azaroth> PROPOSAL: Add to 16.1 that the following substeps should be skipped
17:40:46 <pchampin> ... in my code, the following substeps are skipped
17:40:47 <azaroth> PROPOSAL: Add to 16.1 that the following substeps should be skipped if the test for null is true
17:40:49 <gkellogg> +1
17:40:51 <azaroth> +1
17:40:52 <pchampin> +1
17:40:52 <hsolbrig> +1
17:40:54 <timCole> +1
17:40:55 <ivan> +1
17:40:58 <bigbluehat> +1
17:41:13 <dlehn> +1
17:41:19 <azaroth> RESOLVED: Add to 16.1 that the following substeps should be skipped if the test for null is true
17:41:37 <azaroth> SUBTOPIC: Create Term Definition 16.5 should set defined?
17:41:43 <azaroth> https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-api/issues/245
17:42:11 <pchampin> gkellogg: when a term has the form of a CURIE, it is possible that the prefix has not yet been defined
17:42:42 <pchampin> ... so we recursively call "expand IRI";
17:42:57 <pchampin> ... we keep track of defined terms, this should be updated accordingly
17:43:09 <pchampin> ... also, we should have that it should be resolved against the vocabulary
17:44:01 <azaroth> PROPOSAL: Add to Create Term Definition 16.5 that defined should be set to True, and that it should be resolved as vocabulary relative by adding the appropriate parameter
17:44:04 <gkellogg> +1
17:44:05 <azaroth> +1
17:44:08 <bigbluehat> +1
17:44:09 <pchampin> +1
17:44:13 <ivan> +1
17:44:14 <hsolbrig> +1
17:44:16 <timCole> +1
17:44:19 <azaroth> RESOLVED: Add to Create Term Definition 16.5 that defined should be set to True, and that it should be resolved as vocabulary relative by adding the appropriate parameter
17:44:37 <azaroth> SUBTOPIC: Type-scoped context propagation
17:44:44 <azaroth> https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-api/issues/246
17:45:13 <pchampin> gkellogg: when a typed-scoped context is encountered,
17:45:32 <pchampin> ... define context is called; the parameters passed to it are wrong
17:45:50 <pchampin> ... the 'expand' parameter should be 'true', the algorithm currently says 'false'
17:46:19 <pchampin> ... The good news is that we do have tests for this corner case.
17:46:23 <pchampin> ... The intention is clear.
17:46:44 <azaroth> PROPOSAL: Add to Expansion 11.2 that it should pass false for the propagate option for type-scoped contexts
17:46:47 <gkellogg> +1
17:46:49 <azaroth> +1
17:46:51 <bigbluehat> +1
17:46:53 <hsolbrig> +1
17:46:57 <pchampin> +1
17:47:06 <timCole> +1
17:47:13 <azaroth> RESOLVED: Add to Expansion 11.2 that it should pass false for the propagate option for type-scoped contexts
17:47:18 <ivan> +1
17:47:42 <pchampin> s/the 'expand' parameter should be 'true', the algorithm currently says 'false'/the 'propagate' parameter should be 'false', but the default value 'true' is currently used/
17:48:06 <azaroth> TOPIC: Recursive contexts (hsolbrig)
17:49:10 <pchampin> hsolbrig: we discovered that in our use cases, we have a lot of recursive contexts.
17:49:31 <pchampin> ... And I though I read that those were not allowed,
17:49:38 <azaroth> q+ to refer to api#14
17:49:43 <pchampin> ... but couldn't find it in the syntax document.
17:49:46 <dlehn> q+
17:50:05 <pchampin> ... So if context A references context B, and context B references A, what should happen?
17:50:49 <pchampin> gkellogg: step XYZ explictly says that a context previously dereferenced should not be dereferenced again.
17:50:59 <azaroth> Previous resolution - https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-api/issues/14
17:51:09 <gkellogg> s/XYZ/5.2.3/
17:51:18 <azaroth> ack azaroth
17:51:18 <Zakim> azaroth, you wanted to refer to api#14
17:51:24 <pchampin> hsolbrig: the playground complained about it last week. So that's a bug in the playground?
17:51:27 <pchampin> gkellogg: yes
17:51:44 <azaroth> q?
17:51:46 <azaroth> ack dlehn
17:52:05 <pchampin> dlehn: about the playground, we just updated it to a new version,
17:52:13 <pchampin> ... changin how contexts are loaded.
17:52:24 <pchampin> ... That's probably why you saw a change.
17:52:33 <pchampin> ... The new version passes all the tests.
17:52:51 <pchampin> ... May be some new test is needed here?
17:53:49 <pchampin> hsolbrig: we had a very simple example, with a context referencing itself.
17:54:25 <azaroth> q?
17:54:28 <pchampin> gkellogg: I'll check if we don't already have a test for that.
17:56:04 <pchampin> dlehn: can we sum up which URLs should be pointed to in json-ld.org?
17:56:13 <pchampin> ivan: starting from CR, the "latest" URL points to CR
17:56:25 <pchampin> gkellogg: I don't think we should point anywone to 1.0 now
17:57:11 <gkellogg> https://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld-api/
17:58:39 <pchampin> dlehn: https://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld-api/ currently returns a 404
17:58:50 <gkellogg> https://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld-api1/
17:59:04 <pchampin> gkellogg: it probably tries to redirect to https://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld-api11/, but we named it https://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld11-api/
17:59:45 <pchampin> dlehn: what about TR/json-ld-syntax?
17:59:52 <pchampin> gkellogg: it should not exist...
18:00:12 <ivan> https://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld/ https://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld-api/ https://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld-framing/
18:00:13 <pchampin> ... but if it has always been here, we should not mess with it
18:00:23 <gkellogg> https://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld-syntax/
18:00:31 <pchampin> ivan: the three URLs above should work, right?
18:00:42 <pchampin> ... the middle one does not work, which is a bug
18:00:51 <gkellogg> https://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld-api1/
18:01:30 <pchampin> gkellogg: the link above should not exist either
18:01:43 <gkellogg> https://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld1-api/
18:02:04 <pchampin> ivan: I'll contact the webmaster right now
18:02:14 <azaroth> TOPIC: Adjourn
18:02:49 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
18:02:49 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/12/13-json-ld-minutes.html ivan
18:02:49 <ivan> zakim, bye
18:02:49 <ivan> rrsagent, bye
18:02:49 <RRSAgent> I see 2 open action items saved in https://www.w3.org/2019/12/13-json-ld-actions.rdf :
18:02:49 <RRSAgent> ACTION: ivan to contact webmaster about json-ld10 link [1]
18:02:49 <RRSAgent>   recorded in https://www.w3.org/2019/12/13-json-ld-irc#T17-06-37
18:02:49 <RRSAgent> ACTION: bigbluehat to make google doc to co-edit, to be posted next week [2]
18:02:49 <RRSAgent>   recorded in https://www.w3.org/2019/12/13-json-ld-irc#T17-15-24
18:02:49 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees have been gkellogg, azaroth, pchampin, hsolbrig, ivan, bigbluehat, timCole, dlehn, !
18:02:49 <Zakim> Zakim has left #json-ld