17:00:40 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #json-ld
17:00:45 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/12/13-json-ld-irc
17:01:03 <TallTed> present+
17:01:08 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:01:10 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/12/13-json-ld-minutes.html TallTed
17:01:21 <TallTed> RRSAgent, make logs public
17:02:35 <bigbluehat> meeting: JSON-LD WG
17:02:51 <bigbluehat> agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/1ab7df94-bb06-440e-a6b9-bc9022018c57/20231213T120000/
17:02:51 <agendabot> bigbluehat, sorry, I did not recognize any agenda in https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/1ab7df94-bb06-440e-a6b9-bc9022018c57/20231213T120000/
17:03:08 <dlehn> present+
17:03:21 <bigbluehat> chair+
17:03:31 <bigbluehat> present+
17:03:46 <gkellogg> present+
17:03:47 <dlongley> present+
17:04:44 <anatoly-scherbakov> present+
17:05:57 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:06:28 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/12/13-json-ld-minutes.html TallTed
17:06:34 <pchampin> present+
17:06:34 <manu> manu has joined #json-ld
17:06:34 <anatoly-scherbakov> scribe+
17:06:34 <anatoly-scherbakov> bigbluehat: we are going to discuss the future of the WG, future publications and the road ahead
17:06:34 <bigbluehat> topic: Announcements and Introductions
17:06:34 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:06:35 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/12/13-json-ld-minutes.html TallTed
17:06:41 <gkellogg> q+
17:06:41 <anatoly-scherbakov> bigbluehat: Any announcements or introductions?
17:06:41 <manu> q+
17:06:41 <bigbluehat> ack gkellogg
17:07:21 <anatoly-scherbakov> gkellogg: YAML-LD Final Report was published yesterday. Posted on CG blog on it.
17:07:21 <TallTed> i/scribe+/scribe: anatoly-scherbakov
17:07:21 <bigbluehat> ack manu
17:07:21 <dlongley> q+ to also say hi
17:07:25 <anatoly-scherbakov> manu: hello and greetings!
17:07:35 <bigbluehat> ack dlongley
17:07:35 <Zakim> dlongley, you wanted to also say hi
17:07:36 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:07:37 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/12/13-json-ld-minutes.html TallTed
17:07:51 <anatoly-scherbakov> dlongley: great to see everyone!
17:07:59 <bigbluehat> topic: Updates from the CG
17:08:16 <niklasl> niklasl has joined #json-ld
17:08:18 <anatoly-scherbakov> bigbluehat: any further updates from the CG for Dave and Manu?
17:08:20 <niklasl> present+
17:08:34 <anatoly-scherbakov> gkellogg: CG was working on YAML-LD, and driving JSON-LD issues.
17:08:51 <anatoly-scherbakov> gkellogg: Latest ones revolve around `@nest` and scoped contexts.
17:09:18 <anatoly-scherbakov> gkellogg: We introduced CBOR-LD a few weeks ago and discussed it a bit last week. Looking forward to hear about DigitalBazaar's work on that.
17:09:22 <pchampin> q+
17:09:32 <bigbluehat> ack pchampin
17:09:36 <anatoly-scherbakov> bigbluehat: thanks! A lot of work has accumulated to the point that we're looking into formalizing it.
17:09:54 <niklasl> q+
17:10:06 <bigbluehat> ack niklasl
17:10:07 <anatoly-scherbakov> pchampin: I discussed with colleagues about Linked Data in WoT scenarios; they're interested in CBOR-LD and might join the WG.
17:10:38 <anatoly-scherbakov> niklasl: we've been talking about JSON-LD-Star and RDF-Star and thinking how to integrate these.
17:11:10 <bigbluehat> topic: Plans/desire to publish Best Practises doc, YAML-LD, and a CBOR-related specification
17:11:49 <anatoly-scherbakov> bigbluehat: Let's start with low-hanging fruit
17:11:53 <bigbluehat> subtopic: Best Practices
17:12:11 <TallTed> s/Best Practises/Best Practices
17:12:14 <gkellogg> https://w3c.github.io/json-ld-bp/
17:12:22 <anatoly-scherbakov> bigbluehat: the question about Best Practices has been there for a while. Do we need to post it as a separate note?
17:12:48 <bigbluehat> current charter: https://www.w3.org/2023/01/json-ld-wg-charter.html
17:13:01 <anatoly-scherbakov> pchampin: I agree; I need to check with the charter and not everyone might agree
17:13:15 <gkellogg> q+
17:13:34 <bigbluehat> ack gkellogg
17:14:12 <anatoly-scherbakov> gkellogg: there was never a resolution to publish the BP as a Note. It shows the last published version and that leads to a 404. Might be a problem with ReSpec
17:14:40 <anatoly-scherbakov> gkellogg: we can certainly publish it as a Draft Note, even if it is incomplete
17:15:01 <anatoly-scherbakov> gkellogg: there is also a Best Practices document in the CG but it's been removed from the UI
17:15:04 <anatoly-scherbakov> bigbluehat: do they differ?
17:15:09 <anatoly-scherbakov> gkellogg: they're different
17:15:40 <anatoly-scherbakov> bigbluehat: maybe some resolving is in order. The Charter only spells out maintenance of JSON-LD normative documents and also allows non-normative documents
17:16:03 <anatoly-scherbakov> bigbluehat: to make YAML-LD and CBOR-LD normative we need to move formally as a group to re-charter
17:16:12 <anatoly-scherbakov> q+
17:16:20 <bigbluehat> subtopic: YAML-LD
17:16:25 <pchampin> scribe+
17:16:25 <gkellogg> scribe+
17:16:40 <pchampin> anatoly-scherbakov: nice to meet Manu and Dave
17:16:41 <gkellogg> scribe-
17:16:59 <pchampin> ... is it ok for the group to be named JSON-LD if we extend the scope to YAML-LD, CBOR-LD... ?
17:17:15 <pchampin> ... Should we find an Umbrella term?
17:17:28 <manu> I agree with Anatoly, we should shift the WG name given the expanded scope.
17:17:30 <manu> q+
17:17:31 <dlongley> JSON-LD and others! WG :)? ... JSON-LD and Derivatives WG (doesn't sound as friendly)
17:17:34 <pchampin> ... Also other formats such as CSV, Parquet... could be addressed.
17:17:36 <bigbluehat> ack anatoly-scherbakov
17:17:38 <bigbluehat> ack manu
17:17:51 <anatoly-scherbakov> manu: agree with Anatoly, makes sense to rename the group to focus on expanded scope
17:17:52 <dlongley> Expanded JSON-LD Universe WG
17:17:56 <gkellogg> q+
17:18:00 <bigbluehat> ack gkellogg
17:18:20 <anatoly-scherbakov> gkellogg: there is a standard for CSV for LD, its ten years old and has moderate use
17:18:34 <niklasl> q+
17:18:53 <bigbluehat> https://www.w3.org/TR/tabular-data-primer/
17:19:00 <anatoly-scherbakov> gkellogg: "tabular data on the web" it is. It probably needs to be revisited, needs periodic updates. I think though that CBOR is definitely inspired by JSON, YAML and JSON developed together
17:19:25 <anatoly-scherbakov> gkellogg: it might be confusing to try to come up with some other name (Linked Data Working Group? - that is too broad maybe)
17:19:30 <dlongley> JSON-LD Umbrella WG
17:19:41 <anatoly-scherbakov> gkellogg: but we can probably stick with the JSON-LD as group name as we're working on things closely related to JSON-LD
17:19:53 <pchampin> q+
17:19:57 <bigbluehat> ack niklasl
17:19:58 <anatoly-scherbakov> bigbluehat: agree, and let's move on though
17:20:29 <anatoly-scherbakov> niklasl: I agree this is a tricky question; I am leaning towards what Gregg said. One the reasons of JSON-LD success is because it is RDF channeled through JSON
17:21:25 <gkellogg> CSV on the web came out before JSON-LD 1.0 was standardized
17:21:45 <anatoly-scherbakov> niklasl: CSV on the Web saw lower adoption. Something about JSON is very useful, I do not know how to call it more abstractly so that it rings as well as it does now
17:22:02 <anatoly-scherbakov> niklasl: there's something in the simplicity of JSON-LD itself
17:22:12 <gkellogg> INFRA-LD
17:22:19 <anatoly-scherbakov> niklasl: leaving JSON behind we miss the point how we got here
17:22:21 <bigbluehat> ack pchampin
17:23:11 <niklasl> "Not-XML-LD"
17:23:13 <dlongley> JSON-LD and Friends
17:23:13 <bigbluehat> q+
17:23:15 <anatoly-scherbakov> pchampin: My own opinion: I agree Tabular Data on the Web would deserve a refresh. Having one group for all kinds of data formats wouldn't be optimal though. We are focusing on JSON, one particular shape of data
17:23:15 <manu> agree that we need to focus in the new WG.
17:23:24 <bigbluehat> +1
17:23:40 <anatoly-scherbakov> pchampin: other concerns, other languages, should probably be addressed by other groups
17:24:04 <anatoly-scherbakov> pchampin: JSON-LD WG should care about JSON and very similar formats
17:24:08 <dlongley> +1 that JSON-LD is the unifier / north star / commonality
17:24:24 <anatoly-scherbakov> bigbluehat: thanks everyone! Let'
17:24:27 <bigbluehat> ack bigbluehat
17:24:32 <anatoly-scherbakov> bigbluehat: thanks everyone! Let's keep JSON in focus
17:24:33 <gkellogg> rssagent, make logs public
17:24:46 <gkellogg> rssagent, generate minutes
17:24:56 <manu> q+
17:25:02 <bigbluehat> ack manu
17:25:04 <anatoly-scherbakov> bigbluehat: CG report for YAML-LD published, thanks Gregg! what's the future of this format in the WG?
17:25:13 <gkellogg> rrsagent, generate minutes
17:25:15 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/12/13-json-ld-minutes.html gkellogg
17:25:21 <dlongley> +1 to YAML-LD going standards track
17:25:28 <anatoly-scherbakov> manu: I support YAML-LD to go to Standards Track, as long as someone can help moving it through the process
17:25:59 <anatoly-scherbakov> manu: it provides a signal that we're onto something, these patterns are useful in other syntaxes, it allows the RDF data model to shine
17:26:19 <anatoly-scherbakov> manu: in the other syntaxes you can express the same data model: JSON-LD - YAML-LD - CBOR-LD and back, that's a good thing
17:26:45 <anatoly-scherbakov> manu: we should take this to Standards Track. What about implementations?
17:26:46 <anatoly-scherbakov> q+
17:26:50 <pchampin> scribe+
17:27:09 <pchampin> anatoly-scherbakov: the first implementation of YAML-LD is probably gkellogg's
17:27:26 <pchampin> ... I'm developing a Python implementation, based on PYLD, alpha stage at this point.
17:27:54 <pchampin> ... It passes the YAML-LD test suite. My next step is to run the JSON-LD test suite.
17:28:19 <pchampin> ... I'm using it in a little project of mine: browser and knowledge workspace for LD, mostly based on YAML-LD.
17:28:35 <pchampin> scribe-
17:28:39 <anatoly-scherbakov> niklasl: this gets us two baseline implementations. Moving through WG will be about that. Any other notices about implementations?
17:28:48 <bigbluehat> subtopic: CBOR-LD & JSON-LD in CBOR
17:29:28 <gkellogg> https://w3c.github.io/json-ld-cbor/
17:29:34 <anatoly-scherbakov> niklasl: let's move on to CBOR-LD. The questions about it are centered about progressing CBOR-LD spec to match implementations
17:29:39 <gkellogg> https://digitalbazaar.github.io/cbor-ld-spec/
17:29:46 <manu> q+
17:29:49 <anatoly-scherbakov> bigbluehat: what level of compression should we use?
17:29:50 <bigbluehat> ack anatoly-scherbakov
17:29:51 <anatoly-scherbakov> q-
17:29:54 <bigbluehat> ack manu
17:30:06 <manu> Introduction to CBOR-LD: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-json-ld-wg/2020Jul/att-0004/Introduction_to_CBOR-LD.pdf
17:30:25 <pchampin> s/niklasl: let's move/bigbluehat: let's move
17:30:30 <gkellogg> q+
17:30:40 <dlongley> i believe there are three implementations, one in Rust, one in Java
17:30:44 <anatoly-scherbakov> manu: putting the link about CBOR-LD abortions. There are presentations from 2020 we published, they go over the basics. CBOR-LD has 2-3 implementations so far: JS, Rust and something else
17:30:46 <dlongley> one in JavaScript
17:31:21 <anatoly-scherbakov> manu: primary reason was Verifiable Credentials, we had a program in the US with the National Association of Convenience Stores about digital age verification program
17:31:34 <anatoly-scherbakov> manu: the goal was privacy preserving age verification
17:31:57 <anatoly-scherbakov> manu: so that we can prove your age without disclosing any other PII
17:32:35 <anatoly-scherbakov> manu: that was in 2018-2019. One of the things they needed was ability to scan the verifiable credential which was a JSON-LD document
17:33:01 <anatoly-scherbakov> manu: thus we needed a very high density bar code so that the old hardware can scan and handle it, we needed to get a JSON-LD document down to 350 bytes
17:33:31 <anatoly-scherbakov> manu: that's why CBOR-LD came into existence, we needed to compress digitally signed JSON-LD so that it could fit into a QR code. We're now in production
17:34:13 <anatoly-scherbakov> manu: about 4-6 months ago, California department of Motor Vehicles launched their digital driver's license which includes a CBOR-LD QR code
17:34:35 <anatoly-scherbakov> manu: in California you can now show that QR code which is CBOR-LD and prove your age
17:34:48 <anatoly-scherbakov> Well IMHO that's really super cool
17:35:11 <anatoly-scherbakov> manu: the rollout is still happening but I wanted to make a point that it is already in production and in practical use
17:35:21 <TallTed> s/Well IMHO/anatoly-scherbakov: Well IMHO
17:35:35 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:35:37 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/12/13-json-ld-minutes.html TallTed
17:35:43 <anatoly-scherbakov> manu: we put a version number on the version that's out there so that W3C WG can introduce breaking changes in a new version
17:35:58 <anatoly-scherbakov> manu: spec is not in a good shape, it is out of date from the implementation
17:36:14 <TallTed> s/rssagent, make logs public//
17:36:20 <dlongley> q+ to quickly mention that existing implementations include a non-compression mode
17:36:22 <TallTed> s/rssagent, generate minutes//
17:36:23 <dlongley> -q
17:36:26 <dlongley> q-
17:36:33 <anatoly-scherbakov> manu: we've talked about the plan to merge the changes in current spec and the reality of implementations
17:37:01 <anatoly-scherbakov> manu: we have an uncompressed mode in the spec. Even that saves a number of bytes, but compression is what the real users are interested in
17:37:05 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:37:07 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/12/13-json-ld-minutes.html TallTed
17:37:19 <anatoly-scherbakov> manu: we also are working with governments about integrating CBOR-LD into their digital ID systems
17:37:40 <anatoly-scherbakov> manu: that's kind of where we are with CBOR-LD
17:37:44 <bigbluehat> ack gkellogg
17:37:45 <TallTed> s/dlongley, you wanted to also say hi//
17:38:26 <anatoly-scherbakov> gkellogg: I think the two different documents address different things. Pierre-Antoine's expresses basic JSON with CBOR compatible with JSON-LD. DigitalBazaar's version is mostly about how you provide that with semantic compaction.
17:38:43 <anatoly-scherbakov> gkellogg: YAML-LD sets a pattern we probably want to stick with — it is mostly API centric
17:39:11 <anatoly-scherbakov> gkellogg: it mostly involves transformation between YAML and JSON-LD Internal Representation. Compression doesn't happen in CBOR, it can happen in Internal Representation
17:39:52 <anatoly-scherbakov> gkellogg: A concern I had: CBOR-LD 1.0 version doesn't have a parallel in core CBOR
17:39:54 <bigbluehat> q?
17:40:07 <dlongley> q+ to say that current implementations have tags and versions
17:40:12 <anatoly-scherbakov> pchampin: Gregg summarized this very well
17:40:12 <bigbluehat> ack dlongley
17:40:12 <Zakim> dlongley, you wanted to say that current implementations have tags and versions
17:40:31 <anatoly-scherbakov> dlongley: about magic numbers: current implementations have tags indicating their CBOR-LD and version numbers
17:40:44 <anatoly-scherbakov> dlongley: implementations support that; not sure if spec reflects it
17:41:42 <manu> q+
17:41:44 <anatoly-scherbakov> gkellogg: the current spec doesn't detail that. Not sure how the tag structure with JSON-LD in it extracted from a CBOR document is distinguished against any other CBOR structure
17:41:46 <bigbluehat> ack manu
17:42:26 <anatoly-scherbakov> manu: CBOR has a registry, tags are registered there, what we need is to request new numbers in the registry which are granted on first come first serve basis. You don't need an official structure to claim them
17:42:52 <anatoly-scherbakov> manu: if we're an official WG it makes it even easier to register our signature bytes in the CBOR tags registry
17:43:41 <anatoly-scherbakov> bigbluehat: do we want to move forward as chartered, keeping YAML-LD as a Note or a Draft Note, and bringing CBOR-LD spec to the status of a Note?
17:43:54 <gkellogg> q+
17:44:03 <anatoly-scherbakov> bigbluehat: or we feel we are ready to bring these to Standards Track sooner and recharter the WG at this point?
17:44:09 <bigbluehat> subtopic: rechartering?
17:44:12 <bigbluehat> ack gkellogg
17:44:26 <pchampin> q+
17:44:33 <anatoly-scherbakov> gkellogg: I think there is sufficient implementation done for both to move to the Recommendation Track
17:44:34 <dlongley> +1 to gregg
17:44:44 <manu> q+ to speak to level of effort for CBOR-LD and current production trajectory
17:45:00 <anatoly-scherbakov> gkellogg: I do not know if publishing CBOR-LD as a Note makes a difference. Bringing it to Rec Track will improve visibility and hopefully drive participation
17:45:22 <anatoly-scherbakov> gkellogg: Updated Charter should also help other things, like fostering JSON-LD specs
17:45:49 <anatoly-scherbakov> gkellogg: Charter doesn't specifically need to mention RDF-Star
17:45:53 <bigbluehat> ack pchampin
17:46:07 <anatoly-scherbakov> bigbluehat: currently the charter only calls for maintenance, i.e. non breaking changes
17:46:24 <anatoly-scherbakov> pchampin: errata is appropriate; not sure how breaking a change might be to fix a bug
17:46:36 <TallTed> RRSAgent, draft minutes
17:46:37 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/12/13-json-ld-minutes.html TallTed
17:46:45 <anatoly-scherbakov> pchampin: the Note track and the Rec track are meant for different kinds of documents
17:47:04 <anatoly-scherbakov> pchampin: it would be a pushback if we post a spec as a Note and then move it to Rec
17:47:09 <TallTed> s/dlongley, you wanted to say that current implementations have tags and versions//
17:47:41 <anatoly-scherbakov> pchampin: it is Rec material. Falling back to Note track if we are not allowed to push it to Rec wouldn't work. It is a document meant to be a Recommendation, not a Best Practices, not a Note
17:47:53 <anatoly-scherbakov> pchampin: even if we could, having it on Note track can do it better than a CG report
17:48:01 <bigbluehat> q?
17:48:11 <anatoly-scherbakov> pchampin: we will continue working on it in the CG of course until the WG is allowed to take it to Rec track
17:48:11 <bigbluehat> ack manu
17:48:11 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to speak to level of effort for CBOR-LD and current production trajectory
17:48:39 <anatoly-scherbakov> manu: we want to move CBOR-LD out of digiatlbazaar github repo and move it to JSON-LD Github repo
17:49:20 <anatoly-scherbakov> manu: can we do that? secondly, CBOR-LD is way behind where YAML-LD spec is. Problem is, many of us are heads down in Verifiable Credentials WG trying to get about five specs to Rec track
17:49:35 <anatoly-scherbakov> manu: we do not have much bandwidth to work on this spec. Maybe it becomes easier next summer
17:50:05 <anatoly-scherbakov> manu: we're discussing going into production with CBOR-LD systems with national and state governments. They don't necessarily want to wait until the standard is done
17:50:26 <anatoly-scherbakov> manu: but they want an acknowledgement of W3C that W3C is looking forward to standardize CBOR-LD
17:50:33 <niklasl> q+
17:50:38 <bigbluehat> q+
17:50:58 <anatoly-scherbakov> manu: CBOR-LD as a Note doesn't make a lot of sense, we'd like it to go to Rec track
17:51:28 <anatoly-scherbakov> manu: a new WG charter mentioning CBOR-LD could be a signal to the governments and buy us a bit of time to get the spec into proper shape
17:51:59 <anatoly-scherbakov> manu: YAML-LD is further along and we could recharter the group putting both in scope, and focus on YAML-LD first then switching to CBOR-LD later
17:52:10 <anatoly-scherbakov> manu: and we only have 6 months to get CBOR-LD done
17:52:27 <pchampin> +1
17:52:31 <anatoly-scherbakov> manu: publishing a new charter would be a positive signal to the community that we're working on these
17:52:33 <bigbluehat> ack niklasl
17:52:33 <niklasl> +1
17:53:03 <gkellogg> q+
17:53:13 <anatoly-scherbakov> niklasl: sounds like a good idea. I think what we define should be very minimalistic, kind of glue code defining the serialization.
17:53:45 <anatoly-scherbakov> niklasl: this could also say that JSON-LD is beyond JSON. Contextual Compaction of Linked Data with a kind of Framing is the overarching theme here
17:53:56 <bigbluehat> ack bigbluehat
17:54:17 <anatoly-scherbakov> bigbluehat: suggesting we take an action today to bring CBOR-LD into CG space
17:54:34 <anatoly-scherbakov> bigbluehat: let's start its life there, it will need much discussion and activity
17:54:40 <bigbluehat> ack gkellogg
17:55:03 <anatoly-scherbakov> gkellogg: nominally it's a CG action but we are highly overlapped and we can resolve to do that
17:55:40 <manu> agree, gkellogg -- we should write all of the concerns / issues we have down into the issue tracker
17:55:46 <anatoly-scherbakov> gkellogg: manu mentioned that there are open issues with the spec. Would be great if github issues reflect those. this will make it easier for people to contribute
17:56:06 <bigbluehat> PROPOSAL: Bring Digital Bazaar's CBOR-LD 1.0 editor's draft https://digitalbazaar.github.io/cbor-ld-spec/ into the JSON-LD CG for future work.
17:56:13 <manu> +1
17:56:14 <anatoly-scherbakov> +1
17:56:14 <gkellogg> +1
17:56:14 <dlongley> +1
17:56:15 <TallTed> +1
17:56:16 <niklasl> +1
17:56:19 <pchampin> +1
17:56:20 <bigbluehat> +1
17:56:22 <dlehn> +1
17:56:31 <bigbluehat> RESOLVED: Bring Digital Bazaar's CBOR-LD 1.0 editor's draft https://digitalbazaar.github.io/cbor-ld-spec/ into the JSON-LD CG for future work.
17:56:41 <TallTed> technically, "adopt Digital Bazaar's CBOR-LD"
17:56:44 <gkellogg> rrsagent, generate minutes
17:56:45 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/12/13-json-ld-minutes.html gkellogg
17:56:58 <anatoly-scherbakov> bigbluehat: resolved. David you apparently hold the super powers, can you do the actual moving please?
17:57:12 <anatoly-scherbakov> dlehn: eventually it will be moved to W3C and we will have to move it again?
17:57:34 <anatoly-scherbakov> gkellogg: yes if the WG is rechartered. We'll move the repos from the CG to the WG github org, but this might take months
17:57:58 <anatoly-scherbakov> dlongley: this will mean broken links
17:58:11 <dlongley> s/dlongley: this will mean/dlehn: this will mean/
17:58:41 <anatoly-scherbakov> bigbluehat: we can't get it into W3C repo now because it is CG material
17:59:08 <anatoly-scherbakov> bigbluehat: there is an ambient consensus about rechartering
17:59:10 <anatoly-scherbakov> gkellogg: let's do a proposal
17:59:37 <bigbluehat> PROPOSAL: Recharter the JSON-LD WG to focus on YAML-LD and CBOR-LD
17:59:41 <manu> +1
17:59:43 <anatoly-scherbakov> +1
17:59:43 <dlongley> +1
17:59:43 <gkellogg> +1
17:59:46 <pchampin> +1
17:59:47 <bigbluehat> +1
17:59:47 <TallTed> +1
17:59:53 <dlehn> +1
17:59:56 <niklasl> +1 (not excluding RDF-star alignment?)
18:00:24 <bigbluehat> RESOLVED: Recharter the JSON-LD WG to focus on YAML-LD and CBOR-LD
18:00:25 <anatoly-scherbakov> bigbluehat: this resolution doesn't need to be exclusive, it just signals we want to recharter
18:00:45 <anatoly-scherbakov> bigbluehat: we are still continuing the maintenance of JSON-LD core specs and other things
18:00:53 <manu> rrsagent, draft minutes
18:00:54 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/12/13-json-ld-minutes.html manu
18:01:06 <anatoly-scherbakov> bigbluehat: we'll likely not have another CG call before the end of the year, we'll get back to this in January
18:01:13 <TallTed> s/manu, you wanted to speak to level of effort for CBOR-LD and current production trajectory//
18:01:28 <gkellogg> rrsagent, generate minutes
18:01:29 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/12/13-json-ld-minutes.html gkellogg
18:01:35 <gkellogg> rrsagent, pointer
18:01:35 <RRSAgent> See https://www.w3.org/2023/12/13-json-ld-irc#T18-01-35
18:02:47 <bigbluehat> Zakim: adjourn meeting
18:03:01 <bigbluehat> Zakim: end meeting
18:03:11 <bigbluehat> Zakim, end meeting
18:03:11 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been TallTed, dlehn, bigbluehat, gkellogg, dlongley, anatoly-scherbakov, pchampin, niklasl
18:03:13 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
18:03:15 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/12/13-json-ld-minutes.html Zakim
18:03:21 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, bigbluehat; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
18:03:21 <Zakim> Zakim has left #json-ld
18:03:21 <bigbluehat> RRSAgent, bye
18:03:21 <RRSAgent> I see no action items