Meeting minutes
Announcements and Introductions
bigbluehat: any announcement?
gkellogg: it's probably time to mention TPAC, next November. It will be in Japan.
<bigbluehat> https://
bigbluehat: my plan is to be there, but to be confirmed.
… Is anyone planning to be there in person?
gkellogg: I expect to be there in person.
bigbluehat: it will probably be our first F2F post-recharter.
JSON-LD Issue Discussion
<bigbluehat> https://
gkellogg: there was a lot of activity on CBOR-LD, but nobody here to talk about it.
… anatoly-scherbakov has a bunch of PRs.
bigbluehat: let's start with anatoly-scherbakov; I can try to bring CBOR-LD people on a future call.
gkellogg: the CBOR-LD work does not appear in the project, it should.
w3c/json-ld-api#608
<gb> Pull Request 608 Resolve the questions about "JSON Serialization" term (by anatoly-scherbakov) [spec:substantive] [ErratumRaised] [class-3]
anatoly-scherbakov: unfortunately blocked by me
… I got feedback, but haven't processed it yet.
w3c/json-ld-api#619
<gb> CLOSED Pull Request 619 RDF to Object conversion (closing #555) (by anatoly-scherbakov) [spec:editorial] [class-2]
anatoly-scherbakov: this is an earlier version that was closed after discussion and started over.
bigbluehat: Ok, I will take it out of the project
<anatoly-scherbakov> w3c/
<gb> Pull Request 625 (closes #555) Fall back to default logic in `useNativeTypes` mode for RDF numbers which are not JSON numbers (by anatoly-scherbakov)
w3c/json-ld-api#625
anatoly-scherbakov: this is the new version of w3c/
gkellogg: it's a fairly small change.
… However, it is not purely editorial, so it should be turned into a candidate amendment, with <ins>s, <del>s...
… It has to be done manually, not much automation is available for that.
anatoly-scherbakov: I can not wrap a whole block in <ins> or <del>, right?
bigbluehat: correct, they are 'inline'. Is there a specific class to use?
gkellogg: there are other things to put in place. Respec documentation for them is not great, but there are examples in the same doc.
anatoly-scherbakov: what is the use-case for this marking?
gkellogg: it is there for reviewers of the specification, because we are editing a published Recommendation.
anatoly-scherbakov: an HTML diff will not be enough for the reviewers?
gkellogg: no, they do not expect to look at HTML raw code.
… You can look at the W3C process documents that describes the requirements for these things.
<gkellogg> https://
bigbluehat: this is required until we recharter. The alternative is to keep a bunch of open PR and merge them only after we recharter.
… I don't know why TallTed's tick is not green.
… In the DID WG, we are using a list of code owners.
w3c/json-ld-api#623
<gb> Pull Request 623 Fix issue 622 (by multimeric)
bigbluehat: it looks like a white space reformat
gkellogg: it should have a change class label.
TallTed: it's more than just white space.
<niklasl> It says to fix w3c/
<gb> Issue 622 Issue with Step 6 of `9.4.1 LoadDocumentCallback` (by multimeric) [spec:bug] [ErratumRaised] [class-3]
bigbluehat: good point niklasl.
gkellogg: this is class-2, it is not substantive.
TallTed: I disagree. The previous one said "X hold. reject", now it says "IF X holds, then reject".
gkellogg: ok, yes, it is class-3
pchampin: I'm a bit concerned we say this is both non-substantive + normative
… we don't not (yet) have an IPR commitment from this person
… but it seems we need it
gkellogg: we need to mark it back as substantive
pchampin: I'll see what I can do.
… I found it, marked it back as substantive, and sent a message to the person for them to commit to the IPR policy.
bigbluehat: ok, let's wait for their response.
… This change seems good, nobody seems to objet to it.
gkellogg: we need some tests for this.
<gkellogg> w3c/
<gb> Issue 622 Issue with Step 6 of `9.4.1 LoadDocumentCallback` (by multimeric) [spec:bug] [ErratumRaised] [class-3]
bigbluehat: anyone willing to write tests?
[crickets]
bigbluehat: ok, I'm marking it as "needs-test".
w3c/json-ld-api#611
<gb> Pull Request 611 Add compaction to @type map when the compacted item is not already a map. (by gkellogg) [test:missing-coverage]
gkellogg: it is just an additional test.
… pchampin approved it
dlehn: should we use http: or https: for schema.org?
gkellogg: I think all our examples use http: for schema.org.
bigbluehat: this should be an orthogonal discussion. This does not really matter to this test specifically.
… Any objection to merging this?
… Hearing none.
merged that, btw
w3c/json-ld-api#608
<gb> Pull Request 608 Resolve the questions about "JSON Serialization" term (by anatoly-scherbakov) [spec:substantive] [ErratumRaised] [class-3]
w3c/json-ld-api#585
<gb> Pull Request 585 Add graph container array tests. (by davidlehn) [test:missing-coverage]
gkellogg: I had got different results, and thought my results were consistent with the specs.
… but I don't think that dlehn accepted my proposed changes.
dlehn: I don't know, I need to revisit this.
gkellogg: and I can't see my proposed changes in github, strange...
bigbluehat: I suggest we start with this one next time. In the meantime, people should check with their implementation what they produce.