– DRAFT –
JSON-LD WG/CG

Introductions and Announcements

bigbluehat: this is the JSON-LD Working Group and Community Group call
… we will use the January calls to get people from various community to care about the Working Group and hopefully join

ivan: we have a new charter that requires everybody to rejoin the group (because of new deliverable)
… that's why we noticed a number of members leaving the group and re-joining
… please everybody be sure to re-join

see https://www.w3.org/groups/wg/json-ld/participants/

pchampin: please everyone check the page above and contact the AC rep if it says "need to re-join"

bigbluehat: welcome VictorLu as a new co-chair

New Group Overview

bigbluehat: let's go over the charter and what we are supposed to do
… we touched on the re-joining already; this is due to the new IPR agreement.
… We also need to vote on including the CG reports as FPWD.

pchampin: we need to move the specs into W3C space
… before we can do the FPWD vote
… but since the documents seem ready, that should be quick

bigbluehat: you would take an action to move the document into w3c repos

pchampin: the main thing we need are editors who are participants in the WG
… which may not be the case with all of them
… and it can be a chair appointed person to manage the WG deliverables

bigbluehat: I believe that we have editors in the WG for YAML-LD (anatoly-scherbakov) and CBOR-LD (wes-smith)
… do you agree to be editors?

wes-smith: I agree and consent, but note that I'm not (yet) listed as a participant

bigbluehat: Ok, you need to click on join and an AC rep (me) will approve

https://www.w3.org/groups/wg/json-ld/join/

anatoly-scherbakov: I have alteady joined

TallTed: note that some organizations need to rejoin

bigbluehat: it is not urgent but it does need to happen

TallTed: if I click on join, I see a link for my AC-rep to join, but they are not notified

pchampin: I will signal this issue to our admins

bigbluehat: we have editors for YAML-LD and CBOR-LD
… let's talk about the JSON-LD specs; those are the one we have the greatest need for

Editors for https://w3c.github.io/json-ld-syntax/

Gregg Kellogg (v1.0 and v1.1)

Pierre-Antoine Champin (LIRIS - Université de Lyon) (v1.1)

Dave Longley (Digital Bazaar) (v1.1)

pchampin: they are the same for API and Framing

pchampin: there's not rule and I am acting as co-editor in other groups
… but my time is lacking

bigbluehat: Dave Longley is not here, I assume he may not be able to continue

pchampin: I can continue, but I can't be lead editor

bigbluehat: we will need to find lead editors for the 3 JSON-LD specs
… we can buy some time by starting to focus on YAML-LD and CBOR-LD

niklasl: I'll talk to my boss and try get some time for working as editor on the JSON-LD specs

bigbluehat: I'll try to get people interested
… is everyone else present interested in helping with one of these specs?

anatoly-scherbakov: what is the scope of the work?

bigbluehat: with Gregg gone, we need someone to shepherd the PRs and lead the work on the specs

pchampin: Gregg was doing an incredible job as lead editor on these specs
… he was really leading the spec in ways the other editors didn't or couldn't
… we don't need someone that stellar or prominent
… having a lead is still helpful, but you don't have to be a full replacement for Gregg

dlehn: like other people, I don't know how much time I can dedicate to this
… I can't remember the last time I read the spec in whole; I assume you need to have the whole spec in your head

bigbluehat: it is more about PR curation than creation
… the chairs will work with the editor to pick what to discuss and when

dlehn: the people on this call are those who join all the time, so I assume it will have to be someone present on the call

bigbluehat: the few people I can imagine are people who have done JSON-LD implementations
… not all of them are on the call
… the thing that motivates anyone to work on a spec is when they need the spec to say something

niklasl: yes, specifically, we need RDF 1.2 annotations in JSON-LD
… I had a look at Gregg's JSON-LD-star spec and test suite
… Similarly, there are some issues that will give us headaches if we can't fix them

bigbluehat: there are also people interested in JSON-LD streaming
… while this is a separate topic, we could get some editorial help from them

Call Schedule

bigbluehat: I have setup the recurring call for the next 2 years
… we will combine WG and CG calls in January, hopefully bringing more CG people in the next two meetings (LWS, VC, Activity Streams)
… maybe also the people behind JellyRDF (similarity to CBOR-LD)
… hopefully picking their interest to participate
… starting in Frebruary, we will have WG calls; this leaves the CG in limbo space

ivan: let's be careful with bringing CG's people wishlist; we have a lot on our plate already

bigbluehat: agreed, but my primary interest is to make sure people keep interested in the technology, because there are only 9 of us on this call
… we need folks to come

ivan: yes, but we need them to come to do what's in the charter
… there are not that many things for JSON-LD 1.2, but they need to be done
… then JSON-LD 1.2 is supposed to align with RDF 1.2, that's already more than we can chew

bigbluehat: I hear you, let's not create distraction but try to build bridges

ivan: we can also reach out to people privately, be salespersons

bigbluehat: some RDF databases have Property Graph features, they could benefit from JSON-LD being aligned with RDF 1.2

ivan: yes, but there are other things we need to do first
… e.g. security problems around context files

<anatoly-scherbakov> +1

bigbluehat: is everyone ok with this call time for the near future?

<pchampin> +1

<niklasl> +1

<ivan> +1

bigbluehat: the CG (which I also chair) will not have calls beyond the upcoming January calls, unless the need is expressed
… and if it does, we will not have it conflict with this slot

anatoly-scherbakov: we have a number of issues, some PRs
… what should people having some free time to help with those so?
… pick a random issue? or do we have a concept of milestone?

https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/84

bigbluehat: Gregg and I set up a github project, not sure how up-to-date it is
… changes should be tagged based on what kind of states they are
… my preference would be to start by cleaning PRs waiting to be merged (confirm they have tests)
… then we can look at issues: we discuss it, somebody volunteers to write a PR
… I hope we can keep the 1.2 scope to a lot that's already in there or has pending PRs

<ivan> +1 to bigbluehat about emptying the PR backlog

<pchampin> +1

<niklasl> +1

<anatoly-scherbakov> +1

ivan: I believe that JSON-LD 1.2 is still to be publsihed as FPWD

<bigbluehat> +1 to getting "everything" to FPWD asap

ivan: they are obviously in good enough shape for that
… this would help bring people on board

pchampin: +1 to that with one caveat
… a lot of the changes are using "candidate amendment" policy
… because we were planning to make the change in place, but now we're not doing that
… so we need to remove that machinery
… it's some work...but maybe AI could help with that

ivan: but it's rewarding work, because it removes the mess in there

bigbluehat: that amounts to removing the <ins> and <del> tags right?

pchampin: yes, as well as the notes describing the changes

bigbluehat: AI would probably help with that; the PRs will affect a lot of lines
… but nothing controversial, the text is already there
… I would like to have our FPWDs published in February
… is anyone interested in take action to clean up some HTML?

https://github.com/orgs/w3c/projects/84

dlehn: where we managing actions on a github repository?

bigbluehat: point taken
… I'll create an issue

anatoly-scherbakov: I can try removing the <ins> and <del> markups; you can tag me there

Anything Else?

bigbluehat: thanks everybody; we'll meet next week.
… please use the mailing list to let us know what you would like to see discussed