15:44:41 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #json-ld
15:44:41 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2020/03/13-json-ld-irc
15:44:43 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
15:44:44 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), ivan
15:44:53 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2020-03-13: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-json-ld-wg/2020Mar/0008.html
15:45:03 <ivan> Date: 2020-03-13
15:45:03 <ivan> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-json-ld-wg/2020Mar/0008.html
15:45:03 <ivan> Chair: bigbluehat
15:45:03 <ivan> Meeting: JSON-LD Working Group Telco
15:52:38 <rubensworks> rubensworks has joined #json-ld
15:58:18 <azaroth> azaroth has joined #json-ld
15:59:07 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #json-ld
15:59:56 <dlongley> regrets+
16:00:06 <gkellogg> present+
16:00:20 <azaroth> present+
16:00:48 <rubensworks> present+
16:01:10 <bigbluehat> present+
16:02:53 <azaroth> scribe+
16:02:57 <pchampin> pchampin has joined #json-ld
16:03:12 <bigbluehat> Topic: v
16:03:15 <bigbluehat> Topic: Announcements / Reminders
16:03:20 <azaroth> s/Topic: v//
16:03:25 <bigbluehat> Subtopic: Daylight savings and call times -- March 29th next big change
16:03:27 <pchampin> present+
16:03:32 <bigbluehat> https://www.timeanddate.com/time/dst/events.html
16:03:38 <ivan> present+
16:04:12 <azaroth> bigbluehat: Daylight savings are back. Only timezone / dates affected is March 20, 27 in Europe. THen back to "normal"
16:04:19 <bigbluehat> Subtopic: Summary of recent changes from Gregg
16:04:20 <azaroth> ... We'll leave it in the agenda
16:04:39 <azaroth> ivan: Small announcement - have the green light from IANA on the registration
16:04:40 <bigbluehat> Subtopic: IANA Registration
16:04:44 <azaroth> ... have to put two minor things into the document.
16:04:50 <azaroth> ... should be N/A and not None.
16:05:08 <azaroth> gkellogg: For required parameters and usage
16:05:11 <azaroth> ... doing that right now
16:05:29 <azaroth> ivan: That was the cause of the delay. Our document is the authoritative version, so it's fair enough
16:06:10 <azaroth> ... other news, the two level hierarchical x+ld+json ... forwarded a note that says it will be on a future agenda for discussion there.  We've hopefully started the snowball.
16:06:17 <azaroth> bigbluehat: Can we track it?
16:06:25 <azaroth> ivan: Didn't get anywhere to monitor. I guess they'll come back with questions.
16:06:42 <azaroth> gkellogg: Just pushed the change to the draft for the IANA changes and publish date
16:06:56 <azaroth> ... the only thing it takes to publish is a fast forward merge and travis does everything else
16:07:05 <dlehn> present+
16:07:06 <azaroth> ... there's a mailing list that a log gets sent to
16:07:29 <azaroth> ... when you push to publish, it doesn't publish what's on publish, but what's on master
16:07:36 <azaroth> ... but updating that branch kicks off the process
16:07:48 <bigbluehat> Subtopic: Summary of recent changes from Gregg
16:08:24 <azaroth> gkellogg: Couple PRs to API after the CR2 was published for a couple editorial changes
16:08:38 <azaroth> ... 12.8.1 was updated. Preview seems to be broken so hard to see actual changes.
16:08:43 <azaroth> ivan: The generator is broken :(
16:08:49 <azaroth> bigbluehat: Who runs it?
16:08:54 <azaroth> ivan: The system team
16:09:04 <azaroth> gkellogg: Confusion in a variable name, no test changes
16:09:09 <azaroth> ... dlehn pushed some typo fixes
16:09:16 <azaroth> ... markus updated his affiliation
16:09:24 <azaroth> ... I added an expansion test for a scoped remote context
16:09:39 <azaroth> ... looking at the python implementation that might not have been caught properly
16:09:55 <azaroth> ... someone noted a framing problem, which relates to an issue in the merged node maps algorithm
16:10:25 <azaroth> ... had the effect of overwriting values for keywords, but merged for other keys
16:10:36 <azaroth> ... framing test added to verify the right behavior
16:11:01 <azaroth> ... Issue in compaction where a key that was to be used for property maps was using the wrong element
16:11:05 <azaroth> ... still no test changes
16:11:41 <azaroth> ... 2 from dlehn. Reordering error code descriptions, and another for context overflow scenarios and adds more tests
16:13:12 <azaroth> ... More tests being added at this stage. Need to get final updated reports from implementations to move to PR.
16:13:21 <azaroth> ivan: That's what I wanted to ask -- where are we with the reports now?
16:13:33 <azaroth> gkellogg: Need to update mine, but ruby processor is 100% of course
16:13:39 <dlehn> i do have a question about syncing expand and toRdf tests.  how much should that be done?  new ones are usually duplicated, but older tests are not synced at all.  should they be?  (where appropriate)
16:13:44 <azaroth> ... there's a couple PRs to jsonld.js that cover most tests
16:14:15 <azaroth> ... same with python. moving along with pyld for expansion, to and from rdf. And work to do on framing. Expect to wrap up in the next couple of weeks
16:14:27 <azaroth> ... will need a little help from the Digital Bazaar folks for those issues
16:14:47 <azaroth> ... there is the possibility that there'll be tests that we only have 1 passing implementation
16:14:52 <azaroth> ivan: c and c++ implementations?
16:14:58 <azaroth> gkellogg: Haven't heard anything yet.
16:15:18 <azaroth> ... based on issues people are encountering, in the details of framing and compaction, they're probably fairly close to conformance
16:15:24 <azaroth> bigbluehat: Do we know if they're running tests?
16:15:42 <azaroth> gkellogg: I think so. There's an issue that I need to respond to, so they're testing and finding areas of confusion
16:15:47 <azaroth> ... but we don't know any more than that
16:16:06 <azaroth> ... in the past, not sure if groups have solicited input. In this case there's not many implementers that are part of the group.
16:16:17 <azaroth> ... not sure how hard april 3rd date is for getting those reports
16:16:55 <azaroth> ivan: Will need to check, but charter is until end of june... meaning to be perfect, PR should be early - mid may,
16:17:04 <azaroth> gkellogg: So April to gather implementation reports
16:17:12 <azaroth> ... will need to get in touch
16:17:20 <azaroth> bigbluehat: Can we use the Community Group for this?
16:17:33 <azaroth> gkellogg: Seems like a good idea to me
16:17:59 <azaroth> ... another issue ... some editorial work complete issues where we're waiting on response
16:18:06 <azaroth> q+ re greg
16:18:13 <azaroth> ... at some point we need to say no response received
16:20:31 <azaroth> azaroth: Probably Greg won't have a chance to sign off by validating the implementation
16:20:43 <azaroth> ... can resolve them, with a week to review
16:21:16 <azaroth> gkellogg: Propose to close API 265, 371 and 357 as commenter no response, unless response by March 20
16:21:26 <ivan> +1
16:21:34 <bigbluehat> PROPOSAL: planning to close api/265, api/371, api/357 with "no response" unless response by March 20
16:21:36 <bigbluehat> +1
16:21:37 <azaroth> +1
16:21:38 <ivan> +1
16:21:39 <rubensworks> +1
16:21:40 <pchampin> +1
16:21:41 <dlehn> +1
16:21:43 <gkellogg> +1
16:21:48 <bigbluehat> RESOLVED: planning to close api/265, api/371, api/357 with "no response" unless response by March 20
16:22:00 <bigbluehat> from dlehn "i do have a question about syncing expand and toRdf tests.  how much should that be done?  new ones are usually duplicated, but older tests are not synced at all.  should they be?  (where appropriate)"
16:22:01 <azaroth> bigbluehat: dlehn, you had a question back in the chat
16:22:49 <azaroth> dlehn: Theres some tests that aren't synched up with expand and toRDF. Don't know if we should go back through to sync them up.
16:22:59 <azaroth> ... just by running one section you can miss some things
16:23:11 <azaroth> gkellogg: Ruben is the only one doing toRDF direct without expansion
16:23:35 <azaroth> ... degree to which we need to do this could go to Ruben?
16:23:51 <azaroth> dlehn: For manifest to RDF it would be really hard as the names are the same across sections
16:24:01 <azaroth> ... duplicates a lot of stuff. might be better to merge common ones?
16:24:09 <rubensworks> q+
16:24:18 <bigbluehat> scribe+
16:24:18 <azaroth> gkellogg: Rather not make changes other than add obvious missing tests
16:24:26 <azaroth> ... eg issue that Harold came up with
16:24:28 <azaroth> ack azaroth
16:24:28 <Zakim> azaroth, you wanted to discuss greg
16:24:41 <azaroth> dlehn: The recursive context one isn't tested anywhere ....
16:24:50 <azaroth> gkellogg: That's what we should add.
16:25:00 <azaroth> ... adding for completeness sake doesn't seem like the right time to do that
16:25:05 <azaroth> dlehn: maybe not worth the effort
16:25:10 <azaroth> gkellogg: Defer to future release?
16:25:14 <azaroth> ... so it doesn't get lost.
16:25:17 <bigbluehat> ack rubensworks
16:25:37 <azaroth> rubensworks: I have a small list of features that I didn't see any tests for when implementing toRDF
16:25:42 <azaroth> ... plan to add tests in the coming week or so
16:25:50 <azaroth> ... they might already be in expansion, will have a look at that
16:25:54 <azaroth> bigbluehat: thank you!
16:26:19 <azaroth> gkellogg: Nothing more on that. There's 2 issues, the inverses / contexts things, and the ordered errors.
16:26:26 <bigbluehat> Topic: Issues
16:26:29 <azaroth> ... to talk about api 415 briefly ... there's a response ...
16:26:32 <bigbluehat> Subtopic: [api] inverse context creation always creates a language map
16:26:37 <bigbluehat> https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-api/issues/415
16:26:40 <azaroth> ... possible issue on ordering things for inverse context creation
16:26:51 <azaroth> ... will need to investigate before we can validate it
16:26:57 <azaroth> ... some going back and forth on it
16:27:23 <azaroth> ... asked for an example, and he cited compaction test 6 that exercises what he was getting at
16:27:27 <azaroth> ... might need to reorder steps
16:27:35 <azaroth> ... but could be a misunderstanding
16:27:59 <bigbluehat> Subtopic: [api] Order JsonLdErrorCode descriptions
16:28:03 <bigbluehat> https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-api/pull/409
16:28:17 <azaroth> ... other is reordering error code. Normally we use <dl> with data-sort attribute that orders them, but this maybe doesn't use data-sort
16:28:28 <azaroth> ... so need to get the text in the HTML to align with the sort order
16:28:46 <azaroth> dlehn: ordering thing is not very exciting :)
16:29:05 <azaroth> ... if we use data-sort it will put it in a particular order. And the IDL should be the same order as the -sort
16:29:29 <azaroth> ... everything should be ordered the same. Wasn't sure what to do, and ran out of time on it
16:29:56 <pchampin> q+
16:30:20 <azaroth> gkellogg: up to the editors for what to do. Doesn't affect the rendered document at all. Do things exist in the source where you expect them ... so a good idea to have in the same order. data-sort corrects for past errors
16:30:26 <azaroth> ... if someone wants to do it, that's great
16:30:39 <azaroth> dlehn: I sorted the values by piping through `sort` locally
16:30:48 <azaroth> ... which put IRI at the top
16:31:03 <azaroth> gkellogg: Good to just do what the algorithm does
16:31:07 <pchampin> q-
16:31:08 <azaroth> dlehn: Will just make it look right :)
16:31:16 <azaroth> gkellogg: don't sort method param lists
16:31:30 <azaroth> ... as they're in the order they're used in the method definition
16:31:45 <azaroth> ... but error codes, enum values don't order by default
16:31:57 <azaroth> ... and need to be done manually, but keeping the enum in the order below makes the most sense
16:32:05 <azaroth> ... IRI comes first due to caps
16:32:16 <azaroth> ... whereas in data-sort it's after invalid
16:32:23 <azaroth> dlehn: Which things to not sort?
16:32:54 <azaroth> gkellogg: in jsonld processor interface, the definitions of the methods, there's definitions of the three params ... those should not be ordered alphabeitcally but in the order they appear in the method definition
16:33:04 <azaroth> dlehn: Right, okay. I'll work on an update
16:33:12 <azaroth> gkellogg: Great, need to sign off
16:33:17 <azaroth> ... will push syntax today
16:33:23 <azaroth> bigbluehat: Great, thanks, bye!
16:33:52 <azaroth> ... revisit 415?
16:33:57 <azaroth> [crickets]
16:34:03 <bigbluehat> Subtopic: [streaming] Add Streaming RDF Form
16:34:05 <azaroth> ... move on to Streaming
16:34:08 <bigbluehat> https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-streaming/pull/3
16:34:42 <azaroth> ... Streaming PR from Ruben. Could you give us a summary of what's needed?
16:35:11 <azaroth> rubensworks: This fills in the final todos for the streaming doc. Adds some recommendations for how to sort the triples so they serialize to json-ld efficiently for streaming
16:35:25 <bigbluehat> preview link https://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=https%3A%2F%2Fpr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fw3c%2Fjson-ld-streaming%2Fpull%2F3%2F7d5a646.html&doc2=https%3A%2F%2Fpr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com%2Frubensworks%2Fjson-ld-streaming%2Fpull%2F3.html
16:35:27 <azaroth> ... 5 recommendations, and give examples of such ordering, and explain why they're important
16:35:48 <azaroth> ... at the end of the document I give high level suggestion for streaming serializers shouldbe implemented and what things need extra attention
16:36:06 <azaroth> ... eg `@list` keyword is not feasible in a streaming manner as you don't know beforehand when a list is a valid one
16:36:09 <azaroth> ... things like that
16:36:25 <azaroth> ... so I think after this PR, the note should be at a first working draft stage
16:36:41 <azaroth> ... then will go through everything in more detail for small inconsistencies, but then should be done
16:36:52 <azaroth> ... would be good if someone could go through in more detail to see if I made mistakes
16:36:58 <azaroth> bigbluehat: on the PR?
16:37:02 <azaroth> rubensworks: After the PR
16:37:10 <pchampin> q+
16:37:10 <azaroth> bigbluehat: Any objections to merging?
16:37:16 <azaroth> ... it looks good to me!
16:37:21 <azaroth> ... Should go ahead :)
16:37:35 <azaroth> ... Will put that one on the agenda for next week too
16:37:39 <azaroth> rubensworks: Sounds good
16:37:46 <azaroth> q?
16:37:51 <bigbluehat> ack pchampin
16:38:16 <azaroth> pchampin: Just a question about `@list` ... wouldn't it be more useful to be ?? about the lists and try to format them as `@list` and then reject badly formed ones?
16:38:19 <azaroth> ... just an idea
16:38:57 <azaroth> rubensworks: I think that's possible to do. An implementation might decide to do that?  I mention there's difficulties, but don't say that serializers shouldn't handle them
16:39:12 <azaroth> ... some suggestions, but they can handle any way they want
16:39:16 <azaroth> bigbluehat: Any thoughts on that?
16:39:45 <azaroth> ... ...
16:39:54 <azaroth> ... 20 minutes left, next is best practices and CBOR
16:40:17 <azaroth> ... Lets look at CBOR first
16:40:36 <bigbluehat> Subtopic: CBOR issues https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-cbor/issues
16:41:05 <azaroth> ... viktor is not in the WG, but PA can describe?
16:41:19 <pchampin> https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-cbor/issues/3
16:41:25 <azaroth> pchampin: Not much activity recently. Maybe something that deserves discussion is issue 3 about EXI
16:41:47 <azaroth> ... A competitor to CBOR for binary representation of json-like data
16:41:56 <azaroth> ... i have mixed feelings
16:42:27 <azaroth> ... it would be interesting to have a document for binary json-ld, but this might be too general
16:42:31 <bigbluehat> q+
16:42:48 <dlehn> q+
16:42:49 <ivan> q+
16:42:54 <bigbluehat> ack bigbluehat
16:42:58 <azaroth> bigbluehat: if we add EXI, it could be an appendix or a separate note. I don't think we should pick.
16:43:01 <bigbluehat> ack dlehn
16:43:27 <bigbluehat> q+
16:43:38 <azaroth> dlehn: As far as these alternate formats go, there's a bunch of them. Can go from JSON to something that look like JSON. Are they real algorithms or just a note that they exist?
16:43:38 <bigbluehat> ack ivan
16:44:02 <azaroth> ivan: Try to be realistic, looking at the time. Any chance it will end up as a good note?
16:44:13 <azaroth> ... we should be honest with ourselves if it isn't going to make it
16:44:29 <azaroth> ... if the answer is yes we do some sort of extra optimization, that sounds like a lot more work?
16:44:51 <azaroth> ... but even just documenting that you can put JSON-LD into YAML ... sure, you can ... but we need realistic plans.
16:45:02 <bigbluehat> ack bigbluehat
16:45:02 <azaroth> ... Only one that seems to advance is streaming, as Ruben is doing it
16:45:18 <azaroth> bigbluehat: Agreed
16:45:39 <azaroth> bigbluehat: [Internal buffering]
16:45:55 <azaroth> bigbluehat: Maybe we put CBOR into the best practices note, if someone wants to go to the effort
16:46:07 <azaroth> ... subsume the other notes into the BP note
16:46:20 <azaroth> ivan: If the BP note is properly happening and taken care of ... which is also a question
16:46:35 <azaroth> bigbluehat: We have some ... could just publish what we have
16:47:17 <dlehn> people can always work on these side projects later and write up what they learn.  can always put up a json-ld.org page if a note is too much
16:47:20 <azaroth> ... Thoughts on proposal about the CBOR note?
16:47:29 <bigbluehat> PROPOSAL: /me dlehn fact
16:47:48 <bigbluehat> *note deadlines - within 3 months time*
16:47:54 <azaroth> ivan: Question is to PA, any feeling if Viktor can do it in the coming 3 months... no problem if not, but a pity
16:48:03 <azaroth> ... no reason to keep it because it's a good idea
16:48:14 <azaroth> bigbluehat: can always go to the CG
16:48:22 <azaroth> ... what sort of call do we need to make
16:50:40 <azaroth> ivan: Use of call time seems to be futile. docs are out there. won't just close them. CG can take them over. To have it on calls if there's someone actively defending and working on the document
16:50:47 <azaroth> ... don't see that for CBOR or best practices
16:51:08 <azaroth> bigbluehat: As much as I'd like to, I can't spend the time either. Adam is active on issues, but that's all.
16:51:17 <azaroth> ... leave in the category of good idea, and call out to the CG
16:51:29 <azaroth> ... no formal action needed
16:52:09 <azaroth> ... will leave them where they are
16:52:22 <azaroth> q+
16:52:28 <bigbluehat> ack azaroth
16:52:29 <azaroth> ack azaroth
16:53:22 <azaroth> azaroth: if someone from the CG wants to work on it, can we invite them to the WG as IE?
16:53:31 <azaroth> bigbluehat: Could do a CG call in this call time
16:53:56 <azaroth> ivan: If the CG is alive and plans to stay alive after hte WG, with 3 months to go, I could see the CG taking over these things as CG docs
16:54:03 <azaroth> ... no reason to publish as WG docs
16:54:23 <azaroth> ... so someone for the BPs for 1.1 in the CG would be to not rock the boat and just let them do it
16:54:37 <azaroth> bigbluehat: Need to breathe new life into the CG over the next 3 months
16:54:47 <azaroth> ivan: We're at the point where technically we're done.
16:54:59 <azaroth> ... don't have time, energy or the right environment to do a good job on something new in 3 months
16:55:14 <azaroth> ... so CG should take over, and as soon as we have the reports, and go to final phase
16:55:23 <azaroth> bigbluehat: That seems like a good approach
16:55:34 <azaroth> ... needs activity to route discussions into the CG
16:55:38 <azaroth> ... maybe setting up a call
16:55:42 <azaroth> +1
16:56:19 <azaroth> azaroth: CG chairs agree ;)
16:56:34 <azaroth> bigbluehat: Rob and Gregg should write to the CG
16:56:47 <azaroth> ACTION: azaroth, gkellogg to try to reactivate the CG
16:57:04 <azaroth> dlehn: Playground update
16:57:20 <azaroth> ... updated the json-ld.js, but new features now work
16:57:26 <azaroth> s/but/so/
16:57:29 <azaroth> ivan: the real one
16:57:34 <azaroth> dlehn: Yep, the real one :)
16:57:45 <azaroth> ... you can do some recursive things that cause it to explode ... please don't do that
16:58:07 <azaroth> dlehn: playground/dev still exists for playing with the new version in early 1.1 days
16:58:13 <azaroth> s/in/from/
16:58:16 <azaroth> bigbluehat: thank you for that work!
16:58:45 <ivan> zakim, end meeting
16:58:45 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been gkellogg, azaroth, rubensworks, bigbluehat, pchampin, ivan, dlehn
16:58:47 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:58:47 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/03/13-json-ld-minutes.html Zakim
16:58:50 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, ivan; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
16:58:54 <Zakim> Zakim has left #json-ld