16:16:57 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #json-ld
16:16:57 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2020/02/14-json-ld-irc
16:16:59 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
16:17:00 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), ivan
16:17:02 <ivan> Date: 2020-02-14
16:17:02 <ivan> Agenda:https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-json-ld-wg/2020Feb/0007.html
16:17:02 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2020-02-14: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-json-ld-wg/2020Feb/0007.html
16:17:03 <ivan> Chair: bigbluehat
16:17:03 <ivan> Meeting: JSON-LD Working Group Telco
16:32:14 <dlehn> dlehn has joined #json-ld
16:50:34 <pchampin> pchampin has joined #json-ld
16:54:59 <azaroth> Chair: azaroth
16:55:10 <azaroth> present+
16:58:36 <pchampin> present+
16:58:58 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #json-ld
16:59:51 <gkellogg> present+
17:01:31 <ivan> present+
17:02:03 <azaroth> regrets+ ruben
17:02:34 <timCole> timCole has joined #json-ld
17:03:07 <timCole> present+
17:04:47 <azaroth> TOPIC: Approve minutes
17:04:53 <pchampin> scribe: pchampin
17:04:55 <azaroth> PROPOSAL: Approve Minutes of previous call: https://www.w3.org/2018/json-ld-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2020/2020-02-07-json-ld
17:04:57 <azaroth> +1
17:04:58 <pchampin> +1
17:05:01 <gkellogg> +0
17:05:14 <ivan> +1
17:05:15 <azaroth> RESOLVED: Approve Minutes of previous call: https://www.w3.org/2018/json-ld-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2020/2020-02-07-json-ld
17:05:22 <azaroth> TOPIC: Announcements?
17:05:44 <azaroth> TOPIC: Process
17:06:18 <pchampin> azaroth: now that we are not talking about normative details,
17:06:29 <azaroth> PROPOSAL: Automatically approve call minutes from now on 1 week after the call, as the calls are not focused on normative content
17:06:34 <azaroth> +1
17:06:34 <pchampin> ... may be we don't neet a formal approval of the minutes of the previous week
17:06:35 <timCole> +1
17:06:41 <pchampin> +1
17:06:48 <gkellogg> +1
17:06:56 <ivan> +1
17:06:57 <pchampin> s/neet/need/
17:06:57 <azaroth> RESOLVED: Automatically approve call minutes from now on 1 week after the call, as the calls are not focused on normative content
17:07:06 <azaroth> TOPIC: Issues
17:07:16 <azaroth> SUBTOPIC: Integrity feature disposal
17:07:24 <azaroth> https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-syntax/issues/108
17:07:58 <pchampin> azaroth: from someone on the mailing list working on Ethereum
17:08:09 <jeff_mixter> jeff_mixter has joined #json-ld
17:08:13 <jeff_mixter> present+
17:08:18 <pchampin> ... interested in SRI
17:08:30 <pchampin> ... gkellogg pointed out that we have deferred this,
17:08:44 <pchampin> ... but that the `@import` mechanism offers an extension point.
17:09:06 <hsolbrig> hsolbrig has joined #json-ld
17:09:11 <hsolbrig> present+
17:09:25 <pchampin> gkellogg: did he raised a different issue, which I referenced in 108?
17:09:33 <pchampin> azaroth: this was an email on the list.
17:10:11 <pchampin> azaroth: does anyone feel differently, or should we keep it deferred?
17:10:21 <pchampin> ivan: that's the only thing that we can do now.
17:10:22 <azaroth> PROPOSAL: Continue to defer work on context metadata (syntax #108)
17:10:26 <azaroth> +1
17:10:29 <gkellogg> +1
17:10:30 <pchampin> +1
17:10:31 <timCole> +1
17:10:33 <jeff_mixter> +1
17:10:36 <hsolbrig> +1
17:10:42 <azaroth> RESOLVED: Continue to defer work on context metadata (syntax #108)
17:10:57 <azaroth> SUBTOPIC: @prefix
17:11:04 <azaroth> https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-syntax/issues/329
17:11:24 <dlehn> present+
17:11:41 <pchampin> hsolbrig: I have a number of prefixes ending with underscore,
17:12:03 <pchampin> ... rather than hash or slash (so not considered as prefix by default);
17:12:14 <pchampin> ... it would be nice to be able to set `@prefix=true` globally,
17:12:24 <pchampin> ... instead of specifying per term.
17:12:51 <pchampin> azaroth: would that apply to *all* terms in the context?
17:13:14 <pchampin> gkellogg: this would apply to all terms except those explicitly marked with `@prefix=false`
17:13:26 <pchampin> ... and this would be meant to be used in subcontexts.
17:13:59 <pchampin> hsolbrig: the ramifications are big...
17:14:15 <pchampin> gkellog: this is actually what 1.0 was doing initially;
17:14:26 <gkellogg> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-comments/2018Jan/0002.html
17:14:53 <pchampin> ... there was an errata to prevent just any IRI to be used as a prefix
17:15:04 <gkellogg> JSON-LD 1.0 errata
17:15:05 <gkellogg> https://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/JSON_LD_Errata
17:15:14 <pchampin> hsolbrig: let me time to ponder on it a little more
17:15:39 <pchampin> azaroth: gkellogg any more issues we should discuss?
17:15:54 <azaroth> https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-api/issues/265
17:16:02 <pchampin> gkellogg: a few are still open.
17:16:16 <pchampin> ... kasei needs to check if the wording satisfies him.
17:17:28 <pchampin> ... For 265 the PR has been merged, the text is up-to-date.
17:17:32 <azaroth> SUBTOPIC: CR2 Timing
17:18:10 <pchampin> azaroth: assuming that the remaining issues can be closed today,
17:18:35 <pchampin> ... when can we publish CR2?
17:19:06 <pchampin> ivan: we have to generate an editor's draft, and submit it to Ralph.
17:19:19 <pchampin> gkellogg: unless something comes up, we are ready for this.
17:20:22 <pchampin> ... The only pending issue is 265, we are waiting for him to agree to close the issue.
17:21:09 <pchampin> ... We decided to remove the section "changes since CR", as this is a new CR.
17:21:29 <pchampin> ivan: but we need something in the Changes section, explaining what lead us to make a new request.
17:21:56 <pchampin> ... Explain what substancial change made us do it.
17:22:11 <pchampin> gkellogg: The substantial change was the definition of the JSON datatype.
17:22:40 <pchampin> ... But before that, all the small changes that we have been tracking were not substantial.
17:23:28 <pchampin> ivan: those can be summarized, but the substantial one must be clearly described.
17:23:39 <pchampin> gkellogg: ok, I have to recreate the change section.
17:24:05 <pchampin> ivan: which documents are we republishing?
17:24:14 <pchampin> gkellogg: the datatype definition is in the syntax document.
17:24:44 <pchampin> ... This impacted he API document, from which we removed bits about canonicalization,
17:24:53 <pchampin> ... and referred to the Syntax doc itself.
17:25:06 <pchampin> ivan: Ok, what about the Framing document. Any substantial change?
17:25:23 <pchampin> gkellogg: (listing the changes)
17:25:57 <pchampin> ... The algorithms were updated along the lines of what we did in the API document.
17:25:59 <pchampin> q+
17:26:26 <pchampin> ivan: that's borderline; we must be very clear about the reason of the change
17:26:48 <pchampin> gkellogg: we can do it
17:27:42 <pchampin> ... I'll change the Syntax and API document, explaining that.
17:27:53 <pchampin> s/change/update/
17:28:12 <azaroth> ack pchampin
17:28:19 <azaroth> scribe+ azaroth
17:28:51 <azaroth> pchampin: if I remember correctly, we deferred a proposal about the algorithm. And after the datatype came up, we went to CR, so that should be listed as substantial?
17:29:58 <azaroth> q?
17:30:00 <pchampin> gkellogg: those changes didn't change the behaviour
17:30:09 <pchampin> ... so I would not consider them as substantial.
17:30:49 <pchampin> azaroth: assuming kasei can close his pending issues today,
17:31:19 <pchampin> ... when do you (gkellogg) think we could be ready?
17:31:39 <pchampin> gkellogg: some PR will need reviewing by pchampin,
17:32:14 <pchampin> ... I would say tuesday or wednesday
17:32:26 <pchampin> ivan: wednesday would be ideal for me
17:33:25 <pchampin> gkellogg: can we use echidna now?
17:33:33 <pchampin> ivan: (confusing answer)
17:35:20 <pchampin> ... need to remove editorial=true to republish Syntax and API, then put it back
17:35:51 <azaroth> q?
17:36:25 <pchampin> azaroth: any other issues about CR?
17:36:35 <azaroth> TOPIC: Best Practices
17:36:45 <azaroth> SUBTOPIC: Typing gotchas
17:36:52 <azaroth> https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-bp/issues/14
17:37:38 <pchampin> azaroth: `@type` sometimes does not behave as anticipated, even by bigbluehat
17:38:25 <pchampin> ... how can we describe it in the BP document, so that people understand the intent of `@type`
17:39:02 <pchampin> ... The process proposed last week was to go through issues, discuss what we want to say,
17:39:17 <pchampin> ... and have someone write it properly.
17:39:19 <pchampin> q+
17:39:35 <azaroth> ack pchampin
17:40:19 <azaroth> pchampin: Type coercion is only for strings. Native types do not need coercion, and are hence insensitive to this
17:40:57 <pchampin> azaroth: would the BP entry be about type coercion, or about the interaction thereof with native types?
17:41:50 <pchampin> ... the gotchas for type coercion seems to be about creating "rdf:type" triples
17:41:57 <pchampin> ... (or rathre not being able to do it)
17:42:06 <pchampin> s/rathre/rather/
17:42:22 <gkellogg> q+
17:42:30 <azaroth> ack gkellogg
17:42:34 <pchampin> azaroth: has anyone tried to explain that?
17:42:53 <pchampin> gkellogg: the core purpose of JSON-LD is to provide context, helping to interpret JSON,
17:43:06 <pchampin> ... especially how to interpret strings in that JSON.
17:43:43 <pchampin> ... It might intersect with "type-coercion with native value",
17:43:58 <pchampin> ... as some people are wanting to add triples to an object.
17:44:29 <pchampin> ... Adding triples is the job of framing.
17:44:49 <pchampin> azaroth: and we fixed `@default` in framing, when applied to `@type`.
17:45:14 <pchampin> ... Do we have an issue for that in the BP,
17:45:29 <pchampin> ... we cause indeed we run into that issue a lot?
17:46:37 <azaroth> * You can't create new rdf:type triples by setting `@type` in the context. Use Framing and `@default` (note that 1.0 did not allow `@default for @type`)
17:46:37 <azaroth> * Core purpose is context for the JSON to interpret it -- especially how you interpret strings.
17:46:37 <azaroth> * Native values + type coercion: No need to coerce native types, because they're not strings.
17:47:18 <azaroth> SUBTOPIC: Multilingual Patterns
17:47:23 <azaroth> https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-bp/issues/5
17:48:18 <pchampin> azaroth: adam had noted that there is some confusion about how to use multilingual data values alongside language maps
17:48:26 <ivan> q+
17:48:30 <azaroth> ack ivan
17:49:02 <pchampin> ivan: I think two things are intertwined here
17:49:14 <pchampin> ... the first is the use of language map, possibly with direction,
17:49:21 <pchampin> ... the second is the use HTML literals.
17:49:31 <pchampin> ... I would prefer to seperate them in BP.
17:50:46 <pchampin> ... gkellogg's proposal was a hack to use almost the same syntax for two cases,
17:51:19 <pchampin> ... which is pretty convoluted. It works, but should this be BP?
17:51:35 <pchampin> gkellogg: in one case, this is a language map; in the other case, this is data indexing.
17:51:47 <pchampin> ivan: yes, but using language tags for data-indexing is misleading.
17:51:54 <pchampin> ... It mislead me.
17:52:44 <pchampin> gkellogg: language maps reflect in the RDF abstract syntax; data indexing is lost in the process.
17:53:15 <pchampin> ivan: the example is convoluted because it uses rdf:HTML,
17:53:20 <pchampin> ... which I don't think is very frequent.
17:54:38 <pchampin> azaroth: should we also discuss `@none` in this context?
17:54:48 <pchampin> ivan: yes
17:54:55 <ivan> +1
17:55:35 <azaroth> SUBTOPIC: Base Context
17:55:43 <azaroth> https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-bp/issues/9
17:55:58 <azaroth> https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-rc
17:56:30 <azaroth> https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-rc/blob/master/context.jsonld
17:56:31 <pchampin> azaroth: the dedicated repo has one issue, requesting reviews on its content
17:56:56 <ivan> q+
17:57:06 <pchampin> ... This document lists core aliases and core prefixes.
17:57:27 <pchampin> ... Please review if before next week, and raise any issue for missing terms,
17:57:33 <azaroth> ack ivan
17:57:35 <pchampin> ... or the way the context is defined.
17:58:26 <pchampin> ivan: One radical way of doing it is to put in the BP document this context with only the aliases,
17:58:43 <pchampin> ... and leave aside the prefixes, which will raise the issue of "why this one and not that one".
17:59:14 <pchampin> ... Arguably, a few of them (rdf, owl) could be kept,
17:59:26 <pchampin> ... but they are only used by RDF geeks who know what to do.
18:00:55 <azaroth> TOPIC: Adjourn
18:01:02 <ivan> zakim, end meeting
18:01:02 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been azaroth, pchampin, gkellogg, ivan, timCole, jeff_mixter, hsolbrig, dlehn
18:01:04 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
18:01:04 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/02/14-json-ld-minutes.html Zakim
18:01:07 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, ivan; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
18:01:11 <Zakim> Zakim has left #json-ld
18:48:24 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #json-ld
20:12:51 <dlehn> dlehn has joined #json-ld
21:42:36 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #json-ld