Meeting minutes
Discussing auto-scribing
other respec tooling
<niklasl> https://
ivan: do we use CDDL?
Wes: no. we don't
bigbluehat: Let's look at open PRs for yaml-ld and cbor-ld and relate issues to them Timebox 20 min each.
YAML-LD PRs and/or Issues
https://
Pull Request 166 Specify editors, authors, and contributors (by anatoly-scherbakov)
w3c/
ivan: We need to add the affiliations of the persons; either real for membr orgs., or "invited expert"
… Did we agree to keep Gregg or how do we otherwise acknowledge him?
anatoly-scherbakov: I'll add affiliations. My understanding of editors and former editors is that if they've contributed to this version, they're (current) editors, otherwise (prev. spec) as "former". Therefore Gregg is editor for this one (1.0).
ivan: To formal rule for this; my take is that editor is for contacting the person to talk about this document. We can have a former editors section and/or keep the authors, but I think keeping as editor won't work.
TallTed: I think we need to get a more common agreement on this. I agree with the logic of Ivan though.
… There are other former editors, and there is a lot of different plain text approaches of this; the team should bring some formal guidelines for all editors.
ivan: But formal guidance will take a long time.
… We need to make a decision here.
niklasl: I'm trying to recall what we did for RDF 1.2
… TallTed do you recall? I think we used `formerEditors` was used
TallTed: yeah. Just not sure what else.
See https://
ivan: I think we should copy RDF 1.2's approach
"Gregg Kellogg (until 2025-09-06), in memoriam"
ivan: Do like in RDF 1.2. Concepts - keep in Editors, with added in memoriam
<niklasl> +1
Pull Request 165 fix links in README.md to point to the w3c org (by pchampin)
bigbluehat: this (#165) should be straightforward.
<gb> CLOSED Issue 165 Missing @type in expanded form when an id map is used in conjunction with @type in a term definition (by 2bigO) [out of scope: transformation]
ivan: No formal decision needed for this.
bigbluehat: feel free to merge once reviewed.
TallTed: leave for some days for the missing commas.
Pull Request 37 Add remaining Use Case Issues. (by gkellogg) [UCR]
bigbluehat: this is a draft PR; close or merge-close? Let editors decide?
bigbluehat: half of those issues aren't closed yet. We can ignore this PR for now and see if it works to address those.
anatoly-scherbakov: agreed
Issue 163 IPR Commitments (by BigBlueHat)
bigbluehat: The IPR issues should be cleared up, but we need to be sure.
https://
bigbluehat: We can ping Pierre-Antoine suggesting to close this.
CBOR-LD PRs and/or Issues
https://
Pull Request 22 Add OpenBadges v3.0.0 context URL to registry. (by BigBlueHat)
wes-smith: I advice to close that; it's been overtaken.
Pull Request 53 Remove inline registry table, point to external repository/document. (by wes-smith)
wes-smith: A simple PR, the old registry was inline; this removes it and points to the new separate registry.
bigbluehat: Any issues with the registry location?
… See no reason not to point to it.
wes-smith: there is a corresponding open issue
dlehn: why remove the dash from the repo name?
wes-smith: it's currently there, if that needs to change we can do that
dlehn: not a big issue
ivan: Is the registry repository maintained by the json-ld community?
wes-smith: that is the understanding
ivan: the CG is then responsible for the name.
… It should be mentioned that the CG owns/maintains that repository
wes-smith: I will add some text to that effect
bigbluehat: We need to look at some of the repository permissions.
… Pierre-Antoine may be able to sort those out.
ivan: Transferring repositories needs some follow-up permission work.
The group reviewed and the PR is merged.
bigbluehat: We also close issue 52 with that.
Pull Request 54 Remove tag registration issue, cleanup wording around CBOR tag. (by wes-smith)
wes-smith: Removing some outdated text regarding IANA tag, and warnings about provisional state, and related cleanup.
ivan: Is the idea to publish first as CG FPWD and then move to WG?
<dlehn> https://
bigbluehat: this seems like a race condition; the intent was to do that; might we skip that now?
<dlehn> that needs to be fixed
ivan: The problem is that the source still this is a CG draft. ReSpec does its job.
The respec json structure needs to be updated; for CBOR-LD and YAML-LD
a/... The respec/... The respec/
bigbluehat: Any objections to merge 54?
dlehn: The link in the iana page for CBOR-LD is broken
bigbluehat: I will set up a redirect for that. But we need to fix that in the registry if possible.
ivan: There is no reference to the JSON-LD specification in this spec. There needs to be formal references in the spec.
bigbluehat: I'll raise an issue for that.
ivan: you may still merge this
bye, Zakim