15:51:08 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #json-ld
15:51:08 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2020/04/10-json-ld-irc
15:51:10 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
15:51:12 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), ivan
15:51:15 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2020-04-10: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-json-ld-wg/2020Apr/0004.htmlDate: 2020-04-10
15:51:16 <ivan> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-json-ld-wg/2020Apr/0004.html
15:51:16 <ivan> Chair: azaroth
15:51:16 <ivan> Meeting: JSON-LD Working Group Telco
15:53:57 <rubensworks> rubensworks has joined #json-ld
15:58:10 <pchampin> pchampin has joined #json-ld
15:59:15 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #json-ld
16:01:38 <azaroth> azaroth has joined #json-ld
16:01:44 <azaroth> present+
16:01:57 <rubensworks> present+
16:01:58 <ivan> present+
16:02:32 <gkellogg> present+
16:02:42 <azaroth> scribenick: rubensworks
16:02:52 <dlehn> present+
16:02:55 <pchampin> q+
16:03:01 <azaroth> ack pchampin
16:03:15 <rubensworks> pchampin: We have something in the CBOR notes, as of 40 minutes ago.
16:03:25 <bigbluehat> https://w3c.github.io/json-ld-cbor/
16:04:14 <rubensworks> ... It's rather basic for the moment. Just a straight JSON to CBOR conversion, with a few JSON-LD-aware hacks. We have to discuss these. For example, bigints in CBOR are converted to xsd:int, but that may not fit into it, so we need to discuss these kinds of things.
16:04:38 <rubensworks> azaroth: We will add CBOR as a discussion point for next week's call.
16:04:40 <azaroth> ACTION: Add CBOR note to 4/17 call
16:05:04 <rubensworks> ivan: There even is a CBOR datatype.
16:05:33 <rubensworks> pchampin: Yes, but there are some things to take into account there. For example conversion with JSON datatype. We may want to convert JSON to CBOR for efficiency.
16:06:11 <azaroth> TOPIC: Recent Changes to the text
16:06:57 <rubensworks> gkellogg: Mainly implementation reports were added. Some small editorial issues have been opened, which I will get to in the next couple of days.
16:07:45 <azaroth> TOPIC: Implementation Reports
16:08:00 <gkellogg> file:///Users/gregg/Projects/json-ld-api/reports/index.html#subj_0
16:08:15 <gkellogg> https://w3c.github.io/json-ld-api/reports/
16:08:35 <rubensworks> gkellogg: We have 8 implementations represented in the reports. 3 of them are rubensworks's
16:08:35 <dlehn> q+
16:09:10 <rubensworks> ... pyld is based off a branch, that will be merged into the master branch shortly. Same as [...].
16:09:19 <pchampin> q+
16:09:49 <rubensworks> ... It looks like we have two implementations passing each test, except for some tests in framing.
16:10:13 <rubensworks> ... HTML will also have 100% conformance in pyld, but not in jsonld.js.
16:10:33 <rubensworks> ... toRdf and fromRdf will also have multiple implementations.
16:11:22 <azaroth> This test: https://w3c.github.io/json-ld-api/tests/fromRdf-manifest#tdi11
16:11:38 <rubensworks> ... The fromRdf, compound literal test has only one implementation at the moment, but that is non-normative, so wouldn't be a big problem if that stays like that.
16:11:39 <rubensworks> q+
16:12:08 <rubensworks> ivan: We should mark tests that are non-normative.
16:12:29 <rubensworks> gkellogg: Yes, there will just be two such tests.
16:13:02 <rubensworks> gkellogg: I'm not sure which implementation ropot is responsible for, so we may have another implementation in the list later on.
16:13:04 <azaroth> ack dlehn
16:13:26 <azaroth> q?
16:13:29 <azaroth> ack pchampin
16:13:30 <ivan> q+
16:13:33 <rubensworks> dlehn: The python and JS implementation is a bit behind, but may get that done later today.
16:13:36 <bigbluehat> scribe+ bigbluehat
16:13:51 <rubensworks> pchampin: Is there a synthetic view on which tests have at least two implementations and which don't?
16:14:22 <rubensworks> gkellogg: No, we just examine each row in the test. We could easily write some software that would show number of tests with at least two passes.
16:14:38 <rubensworks> pchampin: I have a CSS rule that does something like that, which I can share.
16:15:16 <rubensworks> ... I will make a PR to add that.
16:15:22 <azaroth> q?
16:16:01 <azaroth> ack rubensworks
16:16:21 <bigbluehat> rubensworks: I wanted to comment on the compound literal that just had one test
16:16:28 <bigbluehat> ...I don't plan to implement that in my implementation
16:16:35 <bigbluehat> ...because doing that in a streaming way would be tricky
16:16:40 <bigbluehat> ...if it's really necessary, I could try
16:16:42 <timCole> timCole has joined #json-ld
16:16:45 <azaroth> q?
16:16:54 <bigbluehat> ...but since it's non-normative, I'd rather not
16:16:59 <bigbluehat> gkellogg: yeah, those are both experiments
16:17:07 <bigbluehat> azaroth: and since it's non-normative, it's just informational
16:17:19 <azaroth> q?
16:17:22 <azaroth> ack ivan
16:17:23 <bigbluehat> ...but we should call them out, as ivan mentioned, so it's clear they're not required to have two implementations
16:17:26 <bigbluehat> q+
16:17:55 <rubensworks> ivan: The python and JS implementation, can they really be considered independent implementations since they are both by dlongley?
16:18:14 <rubensworks> gkellogg: They share logic, but they are not copies. Same as in my implementation.
16:19:02 <rubensworks> ivan: This is a question the director may ask when we submit it.
16:19:08 <azaroth> q+ to discuss independence of implementations of a spec that is described by an algorithm
16:19:13 <azaroth> ack bigbluehat
16:19:39 <rubensworks> bigbluehat: A lot of framing only has one implementation.
16:19:45 <rubensworks> gkellogg: Both pyld and jsonld.js will pass all tests.
16:20:09 <rubensworks> bigbluehat: Also in HTML tests, some tests have just one passing implementation.
16:20:44 <rubensworks> gkellogg: jsonld.js fails a few of those tests, but pyld will pass all.
16:21:11 <ivan> q+
16:21:13 <rubensworks> dlehn: I switched out the HTML parser in jsonld.js, and with that, all HTML tests pass.
16:21:59 <rubensworks> gkellogg: We expect two implementation reports for jsonld.js: browser and Node
16:22:20 <azaroth> q?
16:23:01 <rubensworks> bigbluehat: Guile has a bunch of inapplicable in the test results.
16:23:08 <ivan> q-
16:23:18 <rubensworks> gkellogg: It uses doap:status, and that has a number of possible values.
16:23:43 <rubensworks> ... Instead of saying FAILED, it may also just say INAPPLICABLE or something else.
16:24:05 <rubensworks> ... (earl, not doap)
16:24:08 <azaroth> ack azaroth
16:24:08 <Zakim> azaroth, you wanted to discuss independence of implementations of a spec that is described by an algorithm
16:24:22 <rubensworks> ... It doesn't matter what those labels say, as long as we have at least two passes per test.
16:25:21 <rubensworks> azaroth: I think the mode that we have specified that if the implementations are carbon copies, because we spec'd an algorithm, and those implementations just implement that.
16:26:16 <azaroth> q?
16:26:16 <rubensworks> ... If problems are discovered in that algorithm, the implementors could discuss this jointly. In that sense, full independence may not be an issue here.
16:26:40 <rubensworks> azaroth: When should we finalize the implementation report?
16:26:49 <rubensworks> ... We should definitely wait on pyld and jsonld.js
16:26:51 <gkellogg> q+
16:27:10 <rubensworks> ... We can either wait until those two are done, or we wait until next week.
16:27:28 <azaroth> ack gkellogg
16:27:32 <pchampin> q+
16:27:42 <rubensworks> gkellogg: What does it mean to freeze the report?
16:27:43 <ivan> q+
16:27:52 <rubensworks> ... We will continue updating the report.
16:28:10 <rubensworks> ... Does the live version of the report need to be fixed to a certain version?
16:28:24 <azaroth> ack pchampin
16:29:56 <rubensworks> pchampin: Is it worth it to add more columns even if not many tests pass? We are working on a Rust report, and thinking about including it in the report, even if not all tests pass.
16:29:58 <azaroth> ack ivan
16:30:25 <rubensworks> ivan: I don't think we should freeze the report, and we can just point to the live report.
16:30:45 <rubensworks> ... We just have to decide when to start the PR phase.
16:31:16 <rubensworks> ... Because of COVID, there is an agreement that all CR votes will be longer than they are now. Usually 4 weeks, but will now be 6 weeks.
16:31:41 <rubensworks> ... A few weeks or days after charter ends should still be fine, but we don't want to wait too long to initiate PR.
16:32:22 <azaroth> q+ to ask about "other implementations" section of report
16:32:27 <rubensworks> ... Putting an implementation in the report, which has like 25% tests that work, but others that fail, is not an attractive thing, so should probably not be added.
16:32:31 <pchampin> q+
16:33:03 <rubensworks> ... The CG had a list of implementation work happening, so we may want to revive that. Once a decent number of tests pass, it should be added to the report IMO.
16:33:05 <azaroth> ack azaroth
16:33:05 <Zakim> azaroth, you wanted to ask about "other implementations" section of report
16:33:40 <rubensworks> azaroth: Is it possible to have another section in the report listing WIP implementations?
16:33:52 <rubensworks> gkellogg: There is a section on jsonld.org on implementations.
16:34:42 <rubensworks> q+ conditions for adding to jsonld.org
16:34:55 <rubensworks> q+
16:35:07 <azaroth> ack pchampin
16:35:28 <azaroth> ACTION azaroth to write prose for implementation report ref to json-ld.org implementation list
16:35:30 <rubensworks> pchampin: A lot of red would indeed give a bad impression.
16:35:34 <azaroth> ACTION: azaroth to write prose for implementation report ref to json-ld.org implementation list
16:35:49 <azaroth> ack conditions
16:35:49 <Zakim> conditions, you wanted to discuss adding to jsonld.org
16:35:53 <ivan> q+
16:36:11 <rubensworks> gkellogg: Implementations should not report failures for sections that they don't intend to implement.
16:36:41 <rubensworks> ... Framing for example shows two implementations, as they are not contained in the manifests of all the other implementations, as they don't intend to implement it.
16:36:48 <azaroth> ack rubensworks
16:38:39 <rubensworks> rubensworks: What are the conditions for listing implementations on json-ld.org?
16:38:42 <azaroth> q?
16:38:57 <rubensworks> gkellogg: Right now, just full spec compliance, but we should open that up for more things.
16:39:03 <azaroth> ack ivan
16:39:49 <rubensworks> ivan: It might be obvious to us what these test report groups are (compaction, ...), but we may want to add more details and links to that.
16:40:01 <azaroth> q?
16:40:09 <rubensworks> gkellogg: Yes, that's a matter of software update. We could add a short description section.
16:40:48 <rubensworks> ivan: This could explain some of the test results of some implementations.
16:41:10 <rubensworks> azaroth: Given the six weeks voting period, when do we need to do the transition?
16:42:35 <gkellogg> q+
16:42:59 <rubensworks> ivan: The week of 20th April is WebConf week, and I am supposed to be around. If on that week Friday (24), it is decided to go to PR, we could start the procedure on Monday (27), so that early May things go out. The vote would then go out around when the charter ends.
16:43:08 <rubensworks> ... We can't make it earlier, so that should be good.
16:43:27 <rubensworks> ... Or do we think we could already decide next week to go to PR?
16:43:36 <rubensworks> azaroth: Depends on pyld and jsonld.js
16:44:14 <rubensworks> gkellogg: I would say that we might vote today, that as soon as the report shows two passes for every norm feature, the transition could happen, which should be somewhere mid next week.
16:44:31 <rubensworks> ivan: Doesn't make a big difference if we just do it next week Friday, would be cleaner.
16:44:47 <rubensworks> ... But next week would be great, because the week after we can start the procedure.
16:44:55 <rubensworks> ... But we need to freeze the reports then.
16:45:12 <rubensworks> gkellogg: The CR doc is frozen now, but we still need to republish.
16:45:40 <rubensworks> ivan: As soon as we go to PR, the doc is frozen, also for editorial changes. (minus typos and such)
16:45:50 <rubensworks> gkellogg: And what about the new process.
16:45:57 <rubensworks> ivan: The new process is not yet active.
16:46:01 <azaroth> q+ to ask about the "changes allowed to this doc" process
16:46:18 <rubensworks> ivan: As soon as we publish PR, it's frozen for a long time.
16:46:35 <rubensworks> gkellogg: So we publish a CR, vote, and then we publish PR.
16:46:55 <rubensworks> ivan: Only shallow editorial changes are allowed.
16:47:03 <azaroth> ack gkellogg
16:47:31 <azaroth> q-
16:47:44 <rubensworks> ivan: We will have to decide next week that we intend to use the new process.
16:48:17 <rubensworks> ... I would try to start a vote for both the PR, and the continuation working group.
16:48:58 <rubensworks> azaroth: Is the new process in flux, whether a spec can/must say that changes will be allowed afterwards?
16:49:30 <rubensworks> ivan: In the PR, you can signal that if something becomes a rec, that you can make changes. But we are transitioning, so I don't know if we can do that now.
16:50:07 <rubensworks> ... We have to raise this upon PR.
16:50:38 <rubensworks> ... We will raise an issue for the PR transition, and in that I will put an additional question for this.
16:51:17 <rubensworks> azaroth: The only concern I have is if the docs are frozen, but then it is decided that it needs to be in the doc, then we need to modify the doc again.
16:51:32 <rubensworks> ivan: Philip has to figure this out.
16:51:43 <rubensworks> azaroth: Ok, so not our headache.
16:52:03 <ivan> s/Philip/Philippe/
16:52:03 <azaroth> q?
16:52:38 <rubensworks> azaroth: We will try to get as many useful entries in the impl report before next week, and get editorial work done.
16:53:08 <ivan> q+
16:53:14 <azaroth> ack ivan
16:53:38 <pchampin> q+
16:53:49 <azaroth> +1 to resolution for streaming next week too
16:54:11 <bigbluehat> ivan: will the streaming note be ready?
16:54:12 <bigbluehat> rubensworks: yes. it should be ready unless issues come up
16:54:15 <rubensworks> ivan: If next week will be an admin resolution meeting, maybe next week we can pass a resolution regarding the streaming note. So we can publish the streaming note and PR on the same date.
16:54:25 <azaroth> q?
16:54:28 <azaroth> ack pchampin
16:54:32 <rubensworks> ... This should give some more visibility.
16:54:54 <rubensworks> pchampin: Is it appropriate to use normative vocab in notes?
16:55:03 <azaroth> q?
16:55:07 <rubensworks> ivan: Yes, but it doesn't have any formal weight.
16:55:24 <rubensworks> q+
16:56:00 <azaroth> TOPIC: Slack
16:56:18 <azaroth> link: https://join.slack.com/t/w3ccommunity/shared_invite/zt-cr70arnm-znGpbS~9_7KdQ9tK9XIzMA
16:56:30 <rubensworks> azaroth: There is a community slack group.
16:57:01 <rubensworks> ... This is mostly the equivalent of cat gifs and memes, but feel free to join the W3C-flavored slack, here is the invite.
16:57:08 <ivan> q+
16:57:13 <rubensworks> ... There is both chatter and support.
16:57:17 <azaroth> ack ivan
16:57:37 <rubensworks> ivan: We could have a separate jsonld channel on that
16:57:55 <rubensworks> azaroth: There is not a real move out of IRC to slack yet.
16:58:09 <rubensworks> ivan: There are talks on that, because people have issues with IRC.
16:58:19 <rubensworks> ... This is still unknown.
16:58:27 <azaroth> ack rubensworks
16:58:36 <rubensworks> https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-wg/pull/140
16:58:40 <bigbluehat> rubensworks: we probably should've talked about this last week
16:58:46 <bigbluehat> ...but there's a PR on the namespace document
16:58:59 <bigbluehat> ...so we should probably decide if that should be in there
16:59:38 <bigbluehat> ivan: could you reference the final format of the preview?
16:59:43 <bigbluehat> rubensworks: not sure what you mean exactly
17:00:16 <bigbluehat> ivan: I can look at the differences, but it's hard for me to find the different representations
17:00:21 <bigbluehat> ...I can hunt them down in GitHub
17:00:29 <bigbluehat> ...but it'd be helpful to have them added to the issue
17:00:42 <bigbluehat> ...we don't have the preview feature available on this repo
17:00:48 <bigbluehat> rubensworks: should I upload the HTML as a comment?
17:00:52 <bigbluehat> ivan: [thinking]
17:01:01 <bigbluehat> azaroth: it's a matter of formatting a preview URL correctly
17:01:20 <bigbluehat> ivan: so, the problem is that it's on a personal repo (fork) and not on ours
17:02:00 <bigbluehat> ...preview's also having trouble with HTML rendering...
17:02:03 <bigbluehat> ...no idea why
17:02:40 <bigbluehat> azaroth: toward the end of the diff, it adds a section for definitions about the URI for streaming
17:02:50 <bigbluehat> ...there are some questions--like is a github.io URI OK?
17:03:05 <bigbluehat> ...but that would need to wait until the note is published, to then be updated to the final reference to the note
17:03:11 <ivan> -> preview of the PR html https://raw.githack.com/rubensworks/json-ld-wg/add/ns-streaming/ns/json-ld.html
17:03:17 <bigbluehat> ...but if this goes in with the note, then it should point to the location of the note
17:03:25 <bigbluehat> ...but it's a formal namespace doc...and those can be elsewhere
17:03:30 <bigbluehat> ...so lots of variables in terms of process
17:03:39 <bigbluehat> ...I'd prefer to wait on this until the note is approved
17:03:46 <bigbluehat> ...and then update the namespace document to point to the note
17:04:07 <bigbluehat> ...in the unlikely event that the note doesn't get published, then we'd have to take this out
17:04:13 <azaroth> q?
17:04:14 <bigbluehat> ...so I'd prefer we wait until post note approval
17:04:51 <bigbluehat> ...so let's review this over the next week as part of a general review
17:04:54 <azaroth> q?
17:04:57 <bigbluehat> ...and makes sure things are in order here also
17:05:12 <bigbluehat> ...thanks for bringing that up rubensworks
17:05:17 <bigbluehat> ...we will discuss it again
17:05:21 <azaroth> TOPIC: Adjourn
17:05:22 <bigbluehat> ...bye all. talk next week!
17:05:24 <ivan> zakim, end meeting
17:05:24 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been azaroth, rubensworks, ivan, gkellogg, dlehn
17:05:26 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
17:05:26 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/04/10-json-ld-minutes.html Zakim
17:05:29 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, ivan; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
17:05:33 <Zakim> Zakim has left #json-ld
17:15:08 <ivan> rrsagent, bye
17:15:08 <RRSAgent> I see 2 open action items saved in https://www.w3.org/2020/04/10-json-ld-actions.rdf :
17:15:08 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Add CBOR note to 4/17 call [1]
17:15:08 <RRSAgent>   recorded in https://www.w3.org/2020/04/10-json-ld-irc#T16-04-40
17:15:08 <RRSAgent> ACTION: azaroth to write prose for implementation report ref to json-ld.org implementation list [2]
17:15:08 <RRSAgent>   recorded in https://www.w3.org/2020/04/10-json-ld-irc#T16-35-34