15:10:23 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #json-ld
15:10:23 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2020/04/03-json-ld-irc
15:10:25 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
15:10:27 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), ivan
15:10:33 <ivan> Meeting: JSON-LD Telco
15:10:58 <ivan> date: 2020-04-03
15:48:25 <ivan> Agenda: https://www.w3.org/mid/CABevsUGWVWyFJys5Vzq4CVkp4y4vrWZ6Lwgvt70PZ5pxreDTZQ@mail.gmail.com
15:48:57 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: Agenda 2020-04-03 https://www.w3.org/mid/CABevsUGWVWyFJys5Vzq4CVkp4y4vrWZ6Lwgvt70PZ5pxreDTZQ@mail.gmail.com
15:55:33 <azaroth> azaroth has joined #json-ld
15:57:51 <pchampin> pchampin has joined #json-ld
15:57:56 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #json-ld
16:00:00 <pchampin> the "join from browser" link leads me to a "403 Forbidden" page :-(
16:00:02 <rubensworks> rubensworks has joined #json-ld
16:01:20 <bigbluehat> present+
16:01:30 <gkellogg> present+
16:02:26 <dlongley> regrets+
16:04:14 <hsolbrig> hsolbrig has joined #json-ld
16:04:17 <hsolbrig> present+
16:04:24 <hsolbrig> Waiting for zoom?
16:04:32 <rubensworks> present+
16:05:10 <hsolbrig> So is everyone waiting for host on zoom?
16:08:10 <ivan> present+
16:09:54 <pchampin> present+
16:10:58 <azaroth> chair+
16:11:38 <bigbluehat> scribe+
16:11:57 <bigbluehat> azaroth: any announcements or reminders?
16:12:10 <bigbluehat> ...any recent changes?
16:12:20 <azaroth> TOPIC: Changes to the documents
16:12:21 <bigbluehat> gkellogg: there's been some activity on getting some implementation reports
16:12:23 <gkellogg> https://w3c.github.io/json-ld-api/reports/
16:12:31 <bigbluehat> ...here's the latest version ^^
16:12:41 <bigbluehat> ...one is pyLD, but there's lots more PRs to merge
16:12:51 <bigbluehat> ...no tests for JSON-LD yet, because they've got PRs pending
16:13:06 <bigbluehat> ...there are 3 implementations from rubensworks--which show great progress
16:13:15 <bigbluehat> ...there were also some issues around compaction
16:13:20 <bigbluehat> ...which came up along the way
16:13:30 <bigbluehat> ...he noted a number of issues which are all editorial
16:13:40 <bigbluehat> ...so they're all in PR 440 on the API repo
16:13:44 <bigbluehat> ...mostly compaction wording
16:13:57 <bigbluehat> ...rubensworks added a test
16:14:00 <bigbluehat> ...and I think that's it
16:14:11 <bigbluehat> azaroth: some some editorial and lots of implementation report updating
16:14:25 <bigbluehat> gkellogg: I didn't see any mass communication about tests
16:14:52 <bigbluehat> bigbluehat: I'll get something up today routing people to the community group
16:15:07 <bigbluehat> gkellogg: one thing about doing a poll would give us one place to find the info later
16:15:45 <bigbluehat> ...whereas in the CG it'd be across lots of emails
16:15:58 <bigbluehat> ...and the CG isn't really the right place...since this is a WG effort
16:16:13 <dlehn> present+
16:16:32 <bigbluehat> bigbluehat: I'd prefer to put it on lists, so anyone can see it future or present
16:17:18 <bigbluehat> azaroth: sending an email seems easiest to do
16:17:28 <bigbluehat> ...the WBS is...no offense...not the most user friendly thing
16:17:36 <bigbluehat> ...I'm fine with either, though
16:17:57 <bigbluehat> bigbluehat: we could curate the email output
16:18:02 <bigbluehat> gkellogg: the important thing is to get it out there
16:18:24 <bigbluehat> ACTION: bigbluehat to send out APB about implementations--asking for folks to respond about their status
16:18:36 <bigbluehat> azaroth: any updates from implementations?
16:18:49 <bigbluehat> ...I'll reach out to "my" Greg to see about getting his report in
16:18:54 <bigbluehat> gkellogg: think we decided to freeze tests today
16:18:57 <azaroth> TOPIC: Process
16:19:30 <bigbluehat> azaroth: so, ivan sent the draft recharter to communications, who sent it to the AC, and we have some early support
16:20:08 <bigbluehat> ivan: so the feedback given was very general--not specific to our charter
16:20:13 <bigbluehat> ...but an issue for charters in general
16:20:32 <bigbluehat> ...the criticism was that members +1 charters, but they should be clear about why they support it
16:21:22 <bigbluehat> azaroth: so, when the actual AC vote comes out, we can have our respective AC reps say a bit more about why they care and are supporting the work
16:21:38 <bigbluehat> ...and that will hopefully encourage others (through modeling good behaviour)
16:21:50 <bigbluehat> hsolbrig: should we resubmit letters with more details then?
16:21:58 <bigbluehat> azaroth: I wouldn't bother as this isn't the vote
16:22:22 <bigbluehat> ...when the AC vote actually goes out, is when the more persuasive support would be helpful
16:22:40 <bigbluehat> ivan: so, really all they have to say is yes or no
16:22:49 <bigbluehat> ...and this advance content is very loose
16:22:57 <bigbluehat> ...so hsolbrig if you want to be supportive on the list, that's totally fine
16:23:06 <bigbluehat> ...I wouldn't give this whole conversation much weight yet anyway
16:23:12 <bigbluehat> ...it's not an official thing yet at least
16:23:37 <bigbluehat> azaroth: yeah, it was meant to be "don't feel obliged to do it" (to hsolbrig), not discouragement
16:23:51 <bigbluehat> ...so, is there a process timeline unrolling at this point?
16:24:03 <bigbluehat> ivan: this advance notice doesn't have a real formal deadline
16:24:10 <bigbluehat> ...the AC voting period is set to 4 weeks
16:24:22 <bigbluehat> ...and due to the COVID drama, that may be extended to 6 weeks
16:24:42 <bigbluehat> ...at the end of October, we'll have some administrative things to do
16:24:50 <bigbluehat> ...and then we could start the formal procedure to make it happen
16:25:13 <bigbluehat> azaroth: and by October, you mean April. :)
16:25:15 <bigbluehat> ivan: yes. sorry
16:25:28 <bigbluehat> azaroth: if you have charter comments, please put them in
16:25:40 <bigbluehat> ...anyone have a link handy for the charter?
16:25:56 <bigbluehat> ...please make issues in that repo, and if time, PRs are welcome!
16:26:00 <ivan>          -> charter repo https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-wg-charter/
16:26:03 <gkellogg> https://w3c.github.io/json-ld-wg-charter/
16:26:15 <bigbluehat> ...any other comments?
16:26:26 <azaroth> TOPIC: Issues
16:26:40 <bigbluehat> azaroth: there don't seem to be any open issues for our REC track docs
16:26:44 <bigbluehat> ...which aren't simply editorial
16:26:50 <bigbluehat> ...anyone know otherwise
16:27:06 <gkellogg> https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-api/issues/428
16:27:07 <bigbluehat> gkellogg: just that one from azaroth about a better example for included blocks
16:27:28 <bigbluehat> ...and 428 which I summed up as basically saying you don't have to implement it the way the spec says
16:27:41 <bigbluehat> ...the desire was that we describe the type of all the algorithm properties
16:27:50 <bigbluehat> ...specifically that activeProperty be null
16:27:53 <bigbluehat> ...I think it'd be overkill
16:28:01 <bigbluehat> ...and that a careful reading would reveal that anyhow
16:28:39 <bigbluehat> azaroth: there was an ask to have the exact Domain for each input variable
16:28:44 <bigbluehat> gkellogg: and I think he meant Range
16:28:47 <bigbluehat> azaroth: I do think that's overkill
16:29:02 <bigbluehat> gkellogg: if WebIDL were more widely scoped, then this stuff would probably be useful
16:29:10 <bigbluehat> ...but as it is, doing this work probably doesn't help much
16:29:17 <bigbluehat> azaroth: and just makes lots of extra work
16:29:24 <bigbluehat> ...I'm sure it'd be lovely for a statically typed language
16:29:33 <bigbluehat> ...but wow...major document expansion
16:29:46 <azaroth> q?
16:29:54 <bigbluehat> gkellogg: I don't think any other W3C spec has as much explanation around this as we do already
16:30:08 <bigbluehat> azaroth: we ok with closing "wontfix" for the remaining part of the suggestion?
16:30:09 <bigbluehat> +1
16:30:25 <pchampin> +1
16:30:27 <hsolbrig> +1
16:30:38 <azaroth> PROPOSAL: Close api #428, won't add possible variable values to documentation
16:30:40 <azaroth> +1
16:30:41 <gkellogg> +1
16:30:41 <bigbluehat> +1
16:30:42 <rubensworks> +1
16:30:43 <pchampin> +1
16:30:57 <ivan> +1
16:31:02 <azaroth> RESOLVED: Close api #428, won't add possible variable values to documentation
16:31:30 <azaroth> TOPIC: Notes Issues
16:31:35 <bigbluehat> azaroth: any other issues? besides my need to improve the examples I provided?
16:31:44 <azaroth> SUBTOPIC: Streaming Note
16:31:49 <bigbluehat> azaroth: so, the streaming note. rubensworks could you give us an update?
16:31:54 <rubensworks> https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-streaming/pull/11
16:32:04 <bigbluehat> rubensworks: this morning I opened a PR for making ivan's suggested changes
16:32:09 <bigbluehat> ...which were related to `@type`
16:32:16 <bigbluehat> ...so the wording has been changed to match that
16:32:20 <bigbluehat> ...and I updated the test suite
16:32:45 <bigbluehat> azaroth: and the only issue...meaning that everything otherwise folks thing it's in good shape/
16:32:54 <bigbluehat> gkellogg: I think it's great
16:32:58 <azaroth> q?
16:33:03 <bigbluehat> ...I intend to implement it once I'm done with these other things I'm doing
16:33:30 <ivan> q+
16:33:32 <azaroth> SUBTOPIC: CBOR Note
16:33:36 <bigbluehat> azaroth: k. manu had a comment about the CBOR note
16:33:39 <azaroth> ack ivan
16:33:43 <bigbluehat> ivan: before going to CBOR
16:34:12 <bigbluehat> ...when to do we formally plan to go to TR?
16:34:23 <bigbluehat> azaroth: how about we discuss it next week, and then publish it after that?
16:34:27 <bigbluehat> ivan: it seems to be mature
16:34:34 <bigbluehat> ...I'd like to get it out there
16:34:47 <bigbluehat> gkellogg: I think we can review it between now and then
16:34:53 <bigbluehat> ...and then publish it after that
16:35:00 <bigbluehat> ivan: I'm in favor of that
16:35:25 <bigbluehat> s/plan to go to TR/plan to formally publish the streaming note/
16:35:36 <bigbluehat> azaroth: so, give it a week? everyone up for that?
16:36:13 <bigbluehat> ...so, let's do that then. we'll aim to publish next week--pending this interim week of feedback time
16:36:17 <azaroth> https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-cbor/issues/6
16:36:20 <bigbluehat> azaroth: so, on to CBOR
16:36:35 <bigbluehat> ...manu provides some useful implementation experience
16:37:03 <bigbluehat> ...the tl;dr version is the conversion rate improvements are valuable
16:37:16 <bigbluehat> ...is there anyone (pchampin maybe) who might be able to work on it?
16:37:18 <ivan> present+ manu
16:37:23 <manu> q+
16:37:29 <bigbluehat> ...or should we see if manu and co can provide directed feedback?
16:37:37 <bigbluehat> ...or should we manage the expectations of the community?
16:37:57 <bigbluehat> ...by stating we're not going to do it this time, so manu et al, don't feel hard done by when in june there isn't a note
16:38:00 <azaroth> ack manu
16:38:07 <bigbluehat> manu: we would not feel hard done by if there wasn't a note
16:38:15 <bigbluehat> ...very nice for you to consider our feelings, though. ^_^
16:38:24 <bigbluehat> ...a general +1 for the CBOR stuff
16:38:33 <bigbluehat> ...it would be nice to get the ball rolling on it
16:38:51 <bigbluehat> ...it's been more and more important to encode the JSON-LD parts into something like CBOR
16:39:03 <bigbluehat> ...we've been saying it'd be CBOR-LD for some time, with nearly not progress on it
16:39:11 <bigbluehat> ...that's due to our being overwhelmed with other work...sadly
16:39:16 <pchampin> q+
16:39:21 <bigbluehat> ...so someone else would have to lead the charge on CBOR-LD
16:39:25 <bigbluehat> ack pchampin
16:39:25 <azaroth> ack pchampin
16:39:39 <bigbluehat> pchampin: I'll try and free up some time in the coming week
16:39:44 <bigbluehat> ...I didn't really want to do this one on my own
16:39:52 <bigbluehat> ...and didn't get much back from Victor
16:40:01 <manu> q+ to note that we have some strong suggestions/thoughts wrt. CBOR-LD :) -- we can commit to a review.
16:40:05 <bigbluehat> ...so even if the Digital Bazaar folks could just check my work, that'd be helpful!
16:40:11 <bigbluehat> ...we'll see what I can get done in the next week
16:40:14 <azaroth> ack manu
16:40:14 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to note that we have some strong suggestions/thoughts wrt. CBOR-LD :) -- we can commit to a review.
16:40:16 <bigbluehat> manu:
16:40:23 <bigbluehat> manu: so, thank you a tone!
16:40:42 <bigbluehat> ...there are some necessary features we'd need to be in there
16:40:53 <bigbluehat> ...but don't yet have a strong suggestion for how those should be written up
16:41:01 <bigbluehat> ...even just processing the feedback in issue 6
16:41:06 <bigbluehat> ...starting there would be helpful
16:41:14 <bigbluehat> ...and then gathering more input from the community would help also
16:41:22 <gkellogg> q+
16:41:31 <bigbluehat> pchampin: I must say I had a quick look at the issue, there's a lot of things that go way over my head
16:41:38 <bigbluehat> ...but I can try to frame some things
16:41:46 <bigbluehat> ...there seem to be two parts
16:41:52 <bigbluehat> ...JSON to CBOR stuff
16:41:58 <bigbluehat> ...which I feel comfortable about
16:42:11 <bigbluehat> ...but it might be naive due to my limited experience
16:42:14 <azaroth> ack gkellogg
16:42:18 <bigbluehat> ...for the CBOR compression, though, I'd need help
16:42:23 <bigbluehat> manu: happy to help!
16:42:32 <bigbluehat> gkellogg: it's helpful that it tells you that you're muted
16:42:42 <bigbluehat> ...if you're working in the CBOR-LD domain
16:42:56 <bigbluehat> ...and you're referencing a JSON-LD context
16:43:02 <bigbluehat> ...what happens...or what if that's reversed
16:43:04 <azaroth> q?
16:43:16 <manu> +1 to be concerned about those things that gkellogg just outlined. :)
16:43:30 <bigbluehat> azaroth: any other comments on the CBOR stuff?
16:44:03 <bigbluehat> azaroth: so, one more item is "base context" -- or the recommended context, or something
16:44:07 <azaroth> https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-rc
16:44:08 <bigbluehat> ...there is a repo json-ld-rc
16:44:13 <azaroth> SUBTOPIC: "initial" context
16:44:35 <bigbluehat> azaroth: so, this wouldn't be a default, but a recommended one
16:44:45 <bigbluehat> ...so a helpful thing that other contexts could lean on to get started
16:45:02 <hsolbrig> q+
16:45:04 <bigbluehat> ...and with some recent work around context resolving
16:45:13 <bigbluehat> ...having an initial context would potentially save quite a lot of processing
16:45:16 <bigbluehat> ...this isn't really a note
16:45:23 <bigbluehat> ...but it does seem like something we could work on
16:45:27 <bigbluehat> ...before June
16:45:32 <bigbluehat> ...thoughts?
16:45:35 <azaroth> ack hsolbrig
16:45:44 <bigbluehat> hsolbrig: I very much like seeing that there
16:45:59 <bigbluehat> ...but I think it'd behoove us to not stray to far
16:46:07 <bigbluehat> ...some of these are already wrong...for instance
16:46:14 <bigbluehat> ...we should keep this to the very generic stuff
16:46:32 <azaroth> q?
16:46:32 <bigbluehat> ...everyone's trying to do this, but not in consistent ways
16:46:36 <bigbluehat> ...which then doesn't help at all
16:46:37 <bigbluehat> q+
16:46:40 <azaroth> ack bigbluehat
16:46:41 <azaroth> scribe+
16:47:00 <azaroth> bigbluehat: We should just match RDFa's initial context and then perhaps a process to keep them in sync
16:47:08 <azaroth> ... no consistency currently, and this could provide that
16:47:16 <gkellogg> q+
16:47:23 <azaroth> ... within a single project's readme, I found schema.org referenced and prefixed in different ways
16:47:34 <azaroth> ... written by one person, so not even internally consistent in a document
16:47:35 <hsolbrig> q+
16:47:37 <azaroth> ... so valuable
16:47:42 <azaroth> ... but devil in the details :)
16:47:56 <azaroth> ... Shouldn't be out of sync with others, and should be consistent
16:47:58 <azaroth> q?
16:47:59 <azaroth> ack gkellogg
16:48:14 <bigbluehat> gkellogg: yeah, I think self-consistency goes, that's mostly been a monkey on ivan's back
16:48:23 <bigbluehat> ...and the CSV Web nominally stays in sync with that
16:48:23 <azaroth> q+ to suggest a process
16:48:35 <bigbluehat> ...so, certainly, we should contemplate a process for this
16:48:59 <bigbluehat> ...in as much as those recommendations have contexts that they recommend
16:49:15 <bigbluehat> ...we could consider not simply referencing it, but pulling it in
16:49:21 <bigbluehat> ...but then we'd very likely have naming conflicts
16:49:26 <azaroth> q?
16:49:27 <bigbluehat> ...so we should maybe at least say why not
16:49:29 <azaroth> ack hsolbrig
16:49:57 <bigbluehat> hsolbrig: one possible step further, is that in the tooling it'd be danged handy to say, "I just want to start working in this context"
16:50:06 <bigbluehat> ...in rdfLib, you can pull in some of the contexts and get going
16:50:20 <azaroth> q?
16:50:23 <azaroth> ack azaroth
16:50:23 <Zakim> azaroth, you wanted to suggest a process
16:50:35 <bigbluehat> ...while it's not this group's thing per se, making it available programmatically would be valuable.
16:51:14 <bigbluehat> azaroth: how 'bout if we reset the JSON-LD context file to the initial best practice to the `@type`/`type`, `@id`/`id` etc and the RDFa initial context
16:51:15 <bigbluehat> q+
16:51:19 <azaroth> ack bigbluehat
16:51:21 <bigbluehat> ...and then we can discuss in other issues
16:52:58 <ivan> +1 ro bigbluehat
16:53:35 <hsolbrig> q+
16:53:40 <azaroth> q?
16:53:50 <bigbluehat> bigbluehat: I think we need to heavily reconsider the `@id`/`id` mapping
16:54:11 <bigbluehat> ...it runs a fowl of so much existing JSON
16:54:19 <bigbluehat> azaroth: yeah...that ship has sailed....
16:54:28 <bigbluehat> bigbluehat: let's unsail it, because I think it's a bad idea
16:54:35 <ivan> q+
16:54:36 <bigbluehat> azaroth: yeah, this is why we need a process
16:54:37 <azaroth> q?
16:54:39 <azaroth> ack hsolbrig
16:54:57 <bigbluehat> hsolbrig: yeah, it took me awhile to even know this was more than prefixing...
16:55:18 <bigbluehat> ...clearly separating namespace prefixes form other JSON aliases would be helpful--as I've said before
16:55:36 <bigbluehat> ...once we can tweak the `@prefix` grammer a bit, to call them out more clearly, it would simplify it
16:55:59 <bigbluehat> ...but here, I wonder if we want to have two separate contexts--one for aliases and one for prefixes
16:56:04 <bigbluehat> azaroth: yep, that could work
16:56:04 <azaroth> q?
16:56:05 <azaroth> ack ivan
16:56:26 <bigbluehat> ivan: RDFa and JSON-LD are different
16:56:44 <bigbluehat> ...in RDFa it's much more difficulty...or ugly...to set the prefixes
16:56:51 <bigbluehat> ...so it's much more useful to have an initial list
16:56:56 <bigbluehat> q+ to explain syncing
16:57:07 <bigbluehat> ...personally, I would trim this list very radically
16:57:23 <bigbluehat> ...we can have long discussion about what bigbluehat says about prefixing
16:57:30 <bigbluehat> ...but as azaroth said, that ship has sailed
16:57:34 <bigbluehat> ...so maybe that's how it has to be
16:58:02 <bigbluehat> ...on the other hand, I'd retain the Dublin Core things, the RDF, OWL, and XSD ones, and Schema.org because it's everywhere, and then remove all the others
16:58:21 <bigbluehat> ...it should really just target the core of JSON-LD
16:58:34 <bigbluehat> ...and DC and Schema are used by "everyone and his brother"
16:58:50 <azaroth> q?
16:58:51 <azaroth> ack bigbluehat
16:58:51 <Zakim> bigbluehat, you wanted to explain syncing
17:00:06 <azaroth> q?
17:00:36 <bigbluehat> bigbluehat: just make sure the prefixes always match what's in RDFa
17:00:50 <bigbluehat> ...doesn't have to be the same list...but shouldn't conflict
17:00:52 <bigbluehat> ivan: agreed
17:00:59 <azaroth> q?
17:01:02 <bigbluehat> azaroth: I've made some initial issues, please send feedback
17:01:08 <bigbluehat> ...thanks all for coming!
17:01:22 <bigbluehat> ...we'll talk next week
17:01:27 <bigbluehat> ...bigbluehat and I will get the blog post out
17:01:31 <bigbluehat> ...everyone read the streaming note
17:01:37 <bigbluehat> ...and hopefully we can get it pushed next week
17:02:24 <azaroth> TOPIC: Adjourn
17:05:44 <ivan> zakim, end meeting
17:05:44 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been bigbluehat, gkellogg, hsolbrig, rubensworks, ivan, pchampin, dlehn, manu
17:05:46 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:05:46 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/04/03-json-ld-minutes.html Zakim
17:05:49 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, ivan; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
17:05:53 <Zakim> Zakim has left #json-ld
17:06:58 <ivan> rrsagent, bye
17:06:58 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item saved in https://www.w3.org/2020/04/03-json-ld-actions.rdf :
17:06:58 <RRSAgent> ACTION: bigbluehat to send out APB about implementations--asking for folks to respond about their status [1]
17:06:58 <RRSAgent>   recorded in https://www.w3.org/2020/04/03-json-ld-irc#T16-18-24