Meeting minutes
<gkellogg> https://
WG rechartered
bigbluehat: first WG meeting in a while
… we have been rachartered
https://
… until Jan 2025
… We were supposed to have meeting quatertly, which we didn't.
… Instead, the CG did meet on a regular basis.
… We need to improve the working model between both groups.
… The quarterly WG calls must happen.
… The CG calls can be on a per-need basis.
… WG members must manually re-join the WG (participants to this call have already).
… If you know any, remind them that they must rejoin.
<bigbluehat> Participants: https://
gkellogg: if you look at the participants list (when logged in)
… there is an icon on the members having not re-joined yet
… which includes some participants of this call
future of the WG
bigbluehat: has anyone any idea before we go through other agenda items?
gkellogg: there are a number of errata, some of them normative.
… There is also work in the RDF-star WG that might impact JSON-LD.
… Some work in the CG about JSON-LD-star might become part of a future JSON-LD 1.2..
gkellogg: also a lot of activity since last summer in the CG around YAML-LD
… we are considering publishing a final report
… The charter mentions YAML-LD; the WG may chose to bring that on REC track.
bigbluehat: is the vision to let the CG tell us when they think this is ready?
gkellogg: yes, but the problem is finding time
… But my feeling is that the CG work on YAML-LD could probably be put forward as a final report in its current state.
bigbluehat: we need to discuss this in the CG.
… a CG final report does not need the same level of maturity as a REC.
dlehn: is anyone using YAML-LD?
anatoly-scherbakov: I am trying to.
juuso-aut: me as well.
anatoly-scherbakov: using YAML-LD for visualization purposes (converting YAML-LD to HTML)
… I'm preparing an open-source tool.
… I'm enthusiats about YAML-LD, I find it practical.
… But I have not contributed much to the specification -- waiting for more practical feedback.
<gkellogg> https://
anatoly-scherbakov: Devoting more time to it recently.
bigbluehat: could you take more editorial responsibility on the document?
anatoly-scherbakov: what would that entail?
<gkellogg> YAML-LD issues: https://
bigbluehat: identifying what is missing in the CG document to be elligible to REC track
… CG documents don't need tests; WG documents do
anatoly-scherbakov: could do with a naive translation of JSON-LD tests
<TallTed> MUST test MUSTs; SHOULD test SHOULDs and MAYs, as these results can be differentiators when choosing which implementation(s) to deploy
anatoly-scherbakov: But advanced features of YAML in YAML-LD need specific signs, but I am not using them.
… I am doing the simplest possible thing (converting `@-keywords` into `$-keywords` with the context)
gkellogg: I did work on tests, working on the extended internal representation
… but we should keep this discussion for a CG meeting.
… I put a link above on the open issues.
juuso-aut: We got 1,5 year project where we are planning to use YAML-LD.
… But can't say how much time I can devote to standardization (it is a commercial project).
… But at least I will continue to attend the calls.
bigbluehat: any other future documents?
… At least we should address the errata more formally.
… I don't think they affect any test.
gkellogg: for the errata considered editorial, the ED has already been updated.
… I don't think there are any barrier to publishing this new version.
… Normative errata do impact the tests,
… but maybe we want to keep them until some JSON-LD 1.2 version,
… which would also take into account the work in the RDF-star WG.
Next call
bigbluehat: I suggest we stick to the quarterly schedule for the WG
… and make CG calls in the meantime.
anatoly-scherbakov: I would be interested by CG meetings.
… The homework consists in reading the current YAML-LD specification, and open issues, right?
bigbluehat: correct
gkellogg: The next CG meeting would be on Feb 15, this time.
bigbluehat: I should update the homepage, to clarify the relation between the WG and the CG.
TallTed: I don't think we should work as you suggest.
… The WG and CG have very different patent policies.
bigbluehat: the YAML-LD needs to progress in the CG, where it started.
… But we must be clear about which group is meeting, because of the patent policy differences.
TallTed: it should be really clear which documents belong to which group.
… And encourage people in the CG to move work to the WG it it matters to them.
gkellogg: a blog post would be a good idea;
… there is some fatigue after doing a lot of work;
… we must encourage people to re-join.
… We have refrained from reflecting any normative update in the ED, focusing on editorial ones.
TallTed: sounds good
bigbluehat: defining the responsibilities of WG vs CG will encourage people to join the WG
TallTed: most people don't keep up with the blog; they focus on the mailing list
bigbluehat: AOB?
gkellogg: for the next CG meeting, please send which issues you want to discuss