15:06:01 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #json-ld
15:06:01 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2020/03/27-json-ld-irc
15:06:03 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
15:06:04 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), ivan
15:06:18 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2020-03-27: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-json-ld-wg/2020Mar/0013.html
15:06:19 <ivan> Date: 2020-03-27
15:06:19 <ivan> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-json-ld-wg/2020Mar/0013.html
15:06:19 <ivan> Chair: bigbluehat
15:06:19 <ivan> Meeting: JSON-LD Working Group Telco
15:11:59 <azaroth> azaroth has joined #json-ld
15:51:04 <azaroth> present+
15:51:37 <pchampin> pchampin has joined #json-ld
15:53:38 <dlongley> regrets+
15:54:24 <rubensworks> rubensworks has joined #json-ld
15:56:03 <ivan> present+
15:59:09 <pchampin> present+
15:59:10 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #json-ld
16:00:07 <gkellogg> present+
16:00:09 <rubensworks> present+
16:00:26 <bigbluehat> present+
16:00:36 <azaroth> scribe+
16:00:58 <bigbluehat> Topic: Announcements / Reminders
16:01:07 <bigbluehat> Subtopic: Daylight savings and call times -- March 29th next big change
16:01:18 <azaroth> bigbluehat: DST madness ends on Sunday (for us at least)
16:01:25 <azaroth> ... so we will go back to being in sync soon
16:01:32 <bigbluehat> Subtopic: Summary of recent changes from Gregg
16:01:45 <azaroth> ... Don't think there have been any big changes?
16:02:34 <azaroth> gkellogg: A couple of changes. PA noted the preserve keyword wasn't described. It's a framing keyword used in expansion to support framing. So added a keyword to the API doc to describe that one. All the others are in the syntax document, and framing specific ones in framing
16:02:55 <azaroth> ... Ruben noted the container definition didn't include all of the possible container values, so we updated that
16:02:58 <dlehn> present+
16:03:15 <azaroth> ... And json-ld.js folks noted some URI issues they encountered and contributed some tests
16:03:24 <azaroth> ... That's pretty much it
16:03:31 <azaroth> bigbluehat: Thank you for that! Any comments / questions?
16:03:41 <bigbluehat> Topic: Issues
16:03:49 <bigbluehat> Subtopic: Our collective future -- WG "close" dates and future WG "maintenance" state options
16:03:53 <azaroth> ... Nope. On to issues...
16:03:58 <azaroth> ... Ivan you have some thoughts on this?
16:04:38 <azaroth> ivan: One issue is whether we can settle everything to go to PR in a month
16:05:00 <azaroth> ... what's the standpoint on that one. I don't have an answer, just a hope :)
16:05:23 <azaroth> ... related to this, if we don't think we can make it by the end of June for TR, the deadline for the group, we need to think about an extension to properly finish things
16:05:31 <azaroth> ... for the extension I don't think there will be a problem.
16:06:13 <azaroth> ... If we don't have enough implementations, then we know there are some in the making, so that could be just a couple of months.
16:06:38 <azaroth> ... That sort of extension shouldn't be a problem.
16:06:53 <azaroth> ... So we should decide in the near future where we're at
16:07:37 <azaroth> ... These days it's relatively widespread to recharter as a maintenance group
16:07:45 <azaroth> ... we did that with VC not long ago
16:08:12 <azaroth> ... I need to talk to PLH on Monday. If we do this, a new charter through the usual process, the current process is quite simple and fast
16:08:24 <azaroth> ... you don't have to rejoin the group, the IPR situation continues
16:08:42 <azaroth> ... but the new process would force people to rejoin because of some obscure, arcane, IPR concerns
16:09:08 <azaroth> ... so it would be good to do it under the current process, meaning to decide and send the charter to AC
16:09:26 <azaroth> ... maintenance means no new recs planned. There are chairs, and we can have telcos when something comes up
16:09:56 <azaroth> ... it's the group that carries on with errata. We might also be able to have a quick turn around for a new version that takes care of errata, but also some new features
16:10:08 <azaroth> ... for new features there is a CR for the new feature only
16:10:25 <azaroth> ... so we need 2-3 implementations of the feature before it goes into the TR
16:10:41 <azaroth> ... need to decide whether June is the deadline, and to decide if we want to go for a maintenance group
16:10:50 <azaroth> ... decision time!
16:11:08 <azaroth> bigbluehat: Related question -- can we do both at the same time?
16:11:37 <azaroth> ivan: Good question ... don't have the answer.  The maintenance group should come when the group ends, but maybe it can switch in when we go to PR as all technical work would be done
16:11:42 <azaroth> q+ to ask about notes and maintenance
16:11:50 <azaroth> ... lets decide on both separately
16:11:52 <bigbluehat> ack azaroth
16:11:52 <Zakim> azaroth, you wanted to ask about notes and maintenance
16:11:53 <gkellogg> q+
16:11:57 <bigbluehat> scribe+
16:12:13 <bigbluehat> azaroth: so, for the technical recommendations this makes sense
16:12:15 <bigbluehat> ...but what about notes?
16:12:22 <bigbluehat> ...for streaming, could we publish that?
16:12:34 <bigbluehat> ...if not, then maybe we shouldn't go to maintenance
16:12:42 <bigbluehat> ...but if so, then it'd be great to go to maintenance
16:12:50 <azaroth> ivan: let me try to find what we have
16:13:03 <ivan> -> https://www.w3.org/2020/01/vc-wg-charter.html VC WG's charter
16:13:16 <azaroth> ... an example ^^ maintenance group earlier this year
16:13:37 <azaroth> ... the deliverables include notes, so answer is probably yes we can issue notes
16:13:46 <bigbluehat> ack gkellogg
16:13:48 <azaroth> bigbluehat: That would be great
16:14:09 <azaroth> gkellogg: In this case they did enumerate specific notes. Useful to allow for other notes as well, not specifically called out
16:14:26 <azaroth> ivan: Yes, true. I don't think it's a problem. Any WG can issue a note at any time
16:14:39 <azaroth> ... True for us. The streaming note is not part of the charter, but no problem publishing it
16:14:53 <azaroth> ... issue is with recommendations. The rest are cherries.
16:15:16 <azaroth> gkellogg: Two more parts. For the extension, strictly speaking we'll have enough implementations to show conformance.
16:15:32 <azaroth> ... for virtually every feature. There might be some where there's some technical issue in getting there.
16:15:42 <azaroth> ... could be achieved with some more effort, but we'll see when we collect them.
16:15:58 <azaroth> ... can collect ruby, python, javascript and update those shortly.
16:16:04 <azaroth> ... then can leave it open for other groups to come in
16:16:11 <azaroth> ... not /required/ for going to PR
16:16:24 <azaroth> ... maintenance group can maintain the implementation report over time
16:16:28 <azaroth> ivan: absolutely
16:16:38 <azaroth> gkellogg: So impelementations after the PR cut off can still appear
16:17:23 <azaroth> ivan: very true, it's under the maintenance group. My strictly personal preference would be if we have 3 covered in the report by end of April, that we should just go ahead
16:17:40 <azaroth> ... it makes things much cleaner. If some others come in later, then the report can be extended
16:17:56 <azaroth> ... going through the hoops for extension would just complicate things
16:18:22 <azaroth> gkellogg: Would be good to send out request to see who wants to submit a report
16:18:34 <azaroth> ... java is working on it. Go perhaps.
16:18:45 <azaroth> ... dont' really know at this stage, but nice to see what peoples' intentions are
16:18:56 <azaroth> ... could do it in a blog post
16:19:15 <azaroth> ... Didn't understand the process for maintenance in updating a rec?
16:19:43 <azaroth> ivan: the new process essentially has the groups being able to do some sort of extension on the current rec
16:19:51 <azaroth> ... so strictly backwards compatible, but adding a new feature
16:20:18 <azaroth> ... there'll be a new name for something similar to CR for just the feature.  We issue a new document with a delta for the new feature that we want to add
16:20:28 <azaroth> ... then the CR-like period, but only looks at the delta
16:20:45 <azaroth> ... with implementations we can then move it to PR-like phase
16:20:56 <azaroth> ... the same as HTML5.whatever with a new element in it
16:21:12 <azaroth> ... details was added without touching anything else, and now it's part of the rec
16:21:40 <azaroth> ... more complex context references for integrity ... we could add that if it doesn't invalidate any 1.1 data, we can do that
16:21:45 <bigbluehat> q?
16:21:47 <azaroth> ... I know only the high level, not the details
16:21:57 <azaroth> bigbluehat: Should get to proposals
16:22:17 <azaroth> ... trending option seems to leave us on current timeline, work towards charter for a maintenance group
16:22:47 <timCole> timCole has joined #json-ld
16:23:21 <bigbluehat> PROPOSAL: continue on current WG timeline (closing on June 15th) and *not* submit for an extension
16:23:27 <gkellogg> +1
16:23:28 <rubensworks> +1
16:23:29 <azaroth> +1
16:23:29 <bigbluehat> +1
16:23:34 <ivan> +1
16:23:34 <pchampin> +1
16:23:36 <dlehn> +1
16:23:42 <bigbluehat> RESOLVED: continue on current WG timeline (closing on June 15th) and *not* submit for an extension
16:24:00 <azaroth> ivan: I think for this, I agree with Gregg, we should reach out to implementers and get reports ASAP
16:24:10 <gkellogg> q+
16:24:15 <azaroth> ... the perl implementation is there, so should be easy to get a report
16:24:36 <azaroth> ... Gregg takes care of ruby ... dlehn, if you can submit for javascript ... and python?
16:24:42 <azaroth> gkellogg: And Ruben's too
16:24:54 <azaroth> dlehn: I haven't run the test generation in a while, but should be working
16:25:18 <azaroth> ivan: Lets get them now. If we have the report ready, then great ... we wait till the end of April to see if any other comes in
16:25:35 <azaroth> gkellogg: ncar working on rdflib
16:25:46 <azaroth> dlehn: Helpful to update PHP to show still just 1.0 ?
16:25:57 <azaroth> ... probably not too bad to make the tests work again ... no intention to update to 1.1
16:26:02 <azaroth> ivan: It doesn't hurt
16:26:05 <rubensworks> q+
16:26:12 <azaroth> bigbluehat: There's doubltess communities that would benefit from it
16:26:22 <azaroth> ... PHP apps not going anywhere
16:26:29 <azaroth> dlehn: I think we'll need someone to update it
16:26:48 <azaroth> bigbluehat: Having the tests run is a good way to get developers
16:27:13 <azaroth> [discussion about PERL implementation]
16:27:17 <bigbluehat> ack gkellogg
16:27:56 <azaroth> gkellogg: suggest that in blog post we construct a poll for implementers ... intend to submit report, intend to submit but not be complete, no intention to submit
16:28:01 <azaroth> ... then push out on social media
16:28:09 <azaroth> ... something the w3c uses?
16:28:16 <azaroth> ivan: WBS ... but not brilliant
16:28:18 <bigbluehat> ack rubensworks
16:28:33 <azaroth> rubensworks: wondering if there will be a point when the test suite will be frozen?
16:28:49 <azaroth> ... nowadays there are some new tests added ... but then implementation reports will be out of date
16:29:19 <azaroth> ... and would need to be resubmitted if tests are missing.  Good to freeze the suite so from then on, the new reports are final
16:29:21 <azaroth> +1
16:29:43 <azaroth> gkellogg: I don't think we did with earlier ones, but at some point we need to stop accepting changes
16:29:51 <dlehn> q+
16:29:59 <azaroth> ... currently in a review period, so can't shut it off completely yet
16:30:11 <azaroth> ... need to send a notification to thecommunity that we're not accepting updates after some date
16:30:42 <azaroth> ivan: we can have implementation report at end of april ... the report would be frozen, but the test suite can continue
16:30:55 <azaroth> gkellogg: How far in advance of publishing the note are the tests for the note frozen
16:31:11 <azaroth> ... to avoid rerunning and resubmitting tests, and then regenerating the note
16:31:36 <azaroth> ivan: Publish note adjacent to the PR request. Note is frozen and bound to a transition.
16:31:39 <azaroth> q+
16:32:01 <azaroth> gkellogg: I think we should consider a date for the report, and then provide a period before that during which we don't change the tests
16:32:14 <azaroth> rubensworks: I think 1 or 2 weeks could be sufficient
16:32:45 <azaroth> ivan: Important that if we have a report, and we submit it, that we don't touch the report during the vote for Rec
16:32:51 <azaroth> ... from that point everything must be frozen
16:33:01 <azaroth> ... otherwise something doesn't work and we get push back from the AC
16:33:14 <azaroth> q?
16:33:17 <bigbluehat> ack dlehn
16:33:41 <azaroth> dlehn: As far as the tests / report ... we could tag the current test suite and say the report is for the tag
16:33:47 <azaroth> ... we should continue to add tests as people find bugs
16:34:04 <azaroth> ... want to generate more tests, for languages with code coverage, we can always find more tests to add
16:34:16 <azaroth> ... for js there's lots of opportunities for more tests. We shouldn't not write those
16:34:26 <bigbluehat> ack azaroth
16:34:35 <bigbluehat> azaroth: I was going to essentially say what dlehn just said
16:34:46 <bigbluehat> ...we could say that the set of tests that we'll report on is frozen as of whenever we pick
16:34:55 <bigbluehat> ...and there's always the possibility to add new tests
16:35:02 <bigbluehat> ...but the question is about what shows up in the test reports
16:35:09 <bigbluehat> ...and that looking weird if they're out of sync
16:35:25 <bigbluehat> ...we then make sure that anything run after a date, just don't got into the report
16:35:33 <bigbluehat> ...so maybe we freeze the report in a week?
16:35:39 <gkellogg> q+
16:35:46 <bigbluehat> ...so folks prioritize what goes into it
16:35:57 <bigbluehat> ...and so they don't implement stuff not going into the report
16:35:58 <bigbluehat> ack gkellogg
16:36:11 <azaroth> gkellogg: I think freezing next week might be premature, but we could count back from the PR
16:36:57 <azaroth> ivan: Beginning of may is going to AC
16:37:22 <azaroth> gkellogg: When do we need to publish the implementation report note?
16:38:29 <azaroth> If we publish April 30, we could freeze on April 16
16:38:55 <bigbluehat> azaroth: is April 30 ok, ivan?
16:39:32 <azaroth> ivan: For AC I would like to be beginning of May ... so April 30 ... no, I'm a cynic ... we should start the process with the director about April 15
16:39:51 <azaroth> gkellogg: Meaning we need to freeze the tests next week
16:40:03 <azaroth> ... and that people need to send in before the 10th
16:40:07 <ivan> s/cynic/pessimist/
16:41:25 <azaroth> ... if we freeze, we can update after the fact ... so long as we don't change what is being reported
16:41:37 <azaroth> ... there's still sufficient for the director, and more evidence is for the AC process
16:41:57 <azaroth> ivan: yes ... a note in a loose sense or a WG note. If it's just a frozen document, that's good enough
16:42:42 <gkellogg> https://w3c.github.io/json-ld-api/reports/
16:43:30 <azaroth> [discussion of ^^ report document]
16:43:40 <azaroth> rubensworks: Still need to publish latest tests
16:43:57 <azaroth> ... submitted report from serializer as well as toRDF
16:44:01 <azaroth> ... will not pass all of the tests
16:44:23 <azaroth> gkellogg: Don't need to pass all the tests, just need two passes for each tests
16:44:36 <azaroth> ... provides useful information to know which features pass
16:44:41 <bigbluehat> PROPOSAL: freeze what tests are used to generate the report by April 3rd and encourage implementers to provide tests before April 10th.
16:44:46 <azaroth> +1
16:44:49 <gkellogg> +1
16:44:49 <ivan> +1
16:44:51 <bigbluehat> +1
16:44:53 <rubensworks> +1
16:44:53 <timCole> +1
16:45:08 <dlehn> +1
16:45:17 <bigbluehat> RESOLVED: freeze what tests are used to generate the report by April 3rd and encourage implementers to provide tests before April 10th.
16:45:20 <azaroth> gkellogg: Even people not making changes can submit reports
16:45:34 <azaroth> ivan: Maintenance group ...
16:45:44 <bigbluehat> PROPOSAL: begin drafting a charter for a Maintenance Group
16:45:52 <ivan> +1
16:45:53 <gkellogg> +1
16:45:53 <pchampin> +1
16:45:54 <azaroth> +1
16:45:54 <rubensworks> +1
16:45:54 <bigbluehat> +1
16:45:56 <dlehn> +1
16:45:57 <timCole> +1
16:46:04 <bigbluehat> RESOLVED: begin drafting a charter for a Maintenance Group
16:46:22 <azaroth> ivan: I will do this next week. shouldn't be very complicated
16:46:47 <azaroth> ivan: One practical thing ...
16:46:59 <azaroth> ... the past few days the W3C is moving to Zoom away from webex
16:47:11 <azaroth> ... the question is if it is worth changing to zoom and forget webex
16:47:31 <azaroth> ... last few months of the WG and people might be messed around, but long term if we have a maintenance group, then zoom is better than webex
16:47:41 <azaroth> ... I'm neutral. You guys tell me what to do
16:48:18 <azaroth> bigbluehat: I'm in all the chat systems anyway
16:48:33 <azaroth> gkellogg: Work on automation for zoom?
16:48:44 <azaroth> ... like zakim type features
16:49:07 <azaroth> ivan: Not really, it replaces webex. It's more stable and these days having video is psychologically good
16:49:17 <azaroth> ... zoom 15-20 video in gallery just works
16:49:18 <azaroth> +1
16:49:25 <azaroth> gkellogg: I'll need to get dressed :D
16:49:33 <azaroth> bigbluehat: Just a shirt
16:49:50 <azaroth> bigbluehat: How soon?
16:49:56 <bigbluehat> PROPOSAL: begin our move to Zoom starting with next week's call
16:49:59 <bigbluehat> +1
16:50:00 <azaroth> ivan: A matter of 15 minutes for me, so we can try next week
16:50:00 <rubensworks> +1
16:50:00 <gkellogg> +1
16:50:01 <ivan> +1
16:50:02 <azaroth> +1
16:50:02 <pchampin> +1
16:50:06 <timCole> +1
16:50:12 <bigbluehat> RESOLVED: begin our move to Zoom starting with next week's call
16:50:20 <azaroth> ivan: I will send the precise URL to the member only list
16:50:30 <azaroth> bigbluehat: We'll call it out in the minutes
16:51:02 <bigbluehat> Subtopic: Streaming progress, pull requests, and issues
16:51:08 <bigbluehat> https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-streaming/issues
16:51:25 <azaroth> bigbluehat: Some issues ... ruben, an overview?
16:51:40 <azaroth> rubensworks: Should the note be locked around mid april?
16:51:55 <azaroth> ivan: No need. we can do it until june, or later with the maintenance group
16:52:17 <azaroth> rubensworks: what has been done ... added a test suite. PR for first implementation report from it.
16:52:33 <azaroth> ... also a PR to add conformance section. Gregg commented on that.
16:52:41 <azaroth> ... don't know if that means everything else is okay?
16:52:53 <azaroth> gkellogg: You addressed everything :)
16:52:58 <azaroth> rubensworks: so good to go
16:53:05 <azaroth> gkellogg: yes as far as i'm concerned
16:53:10 <azaroth> rubensworks: a type issue from ivan?
16:53:29 <azaroth> ivan:  Current document says that type must follow the context in case the type is affected by context
16:54:01 <azaroth> ... okay, but I'm sure that people will be screwed up by this ... better to say type must follow context always, even if it doesn't actually matter in a particular case
16:54:09 <azaroth> rubensworks: Yes agree.
16:54:28 <azaroth> rubensworks: PA made some suggestions, agree with most of them. Can be merged as well
16:54:33 <azaroth> ... unless there are any other comments?
16:55:05 <azaroth> ...
16:55:18 <azaroth> bigbluehat: Okay, we can have 5 minutes back
16:55:29 <azaroth> ... reconvene next week *on zoom*
16:55:39 <azaroth> .. thanks all
16:55:56 <bigbluehat> Topic: Are we all well?
17:00:19 <ivan> zakim, end meeting
17:00:19 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been azaroth, ivan, pchampin, gkellogg, rubensworks, bigbluehat, dlehn
17:00:21 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:00:21 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/03/27-json-ld-minutes.html Zakim
17:00:24 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, ivan; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
17:00:29 <Zakim> Zakim has left #json-ld
17:03:59 <azaroth> azaroth has joined #json-ld
17:18:35 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #json-ld
17:28:00 <ivan> rrsagent, bye
17:28:00 <RRSAgent> I see no action items