15:34:14 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #json-ld
15:34:14 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2019/08/23-json-ld-irc
15:34:15 <ivan> rrsagent, set log public
15:34:15 <ivan> Meeting: JSON-LD Working Group Telco
15:34:15 <ivan> Date: 2019-08-23
15:34:15 <ivan> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-json-ld-wg/2019Aug/0014.html
15:34:15 <ivan> ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2019-08-23: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-json-ld-wg/2019Aug/0014.html
15:34:16 <ivan> Regrets+ gkellogg
15:34:16 <ivan> Chair: azaroth
15:34:31 <ivan> regrets+ tcole
15:47:20 <rubensworks> rubensworks has joined #json-ld
15:54:45 <pchampin> pchampin has joined #json-ld
15:58:46 <ajs6f> ajs6f has joined #json-ld
15:58:48 <azaroth> azaroth has joined #json-ld
15:59:16 <azaroth> present+
16:00:12 <ajs6f> present+
16:00:14 <dlongley> present+
16:00:16 <rubensworks> present+
16:01:53 <ivan> present+
16:01:57 <pchampin> present+
16:02:07 <dlongley> scribenick: dlongley
16:02:14 <ivan> present+ dlongley
16:02:22 <azaroth> TOPIC: Approve previous minutes
16:02:29 <azaroth> PROPOSAL: Approve minutes of previous call: https://www.w3.org/2018/json-ld-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2019/2019-08-16-json-ld
16:02:30 <azaroth> +1
16:02:32 <dlongley> +1
16:02:39 <rubensworks> +1
16:02:58 <pchampin> +0
16:02:59 <ivan> +1
16:03:00 <azaroth> RESOLVED: Approve minutes of previous call: https://www.w3.org/2018/json-ld-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2019/2019-08-16-json-ld
16:03:15 <azaroth> TOPIC: Announcements / Reminders
16:03:42 <dlehn> dlehn has joined #json-ld
16:03:42 <dlongley> azaroth: If you have not registered for TPAC and intend to come please do so sooner rather than later.
16:04:03 <dlongley> azaroth: The block w3c has reserved at the hotel has run out but rooms available at the regular rate as of last week.
16:04:10 <dlehn> present+
16:04:14 <azaroth> TOPIC: Horizontal Review Updates
16:04:40 <dlongley> azaroth: My updates ... I put the information in for the security review.
16:04:41 <azaroth> security: https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-wg/issues/89
16:05:18 <dlongley> azaroth: This is from the questionnaire that Ivan circulated last week on the call which has been linked in the issue. I don't think there's anything. The only thing that has come up for us is 2.6 which is the privacy/security question which is about the request for contexts for tracking who is doing what.
16:05:27 <dlongley> azaroth: That is more privacy than security.
16:05:41 <dlongley> azaroth: Seems 2.14 talks about incognito/private web browsing as well.
16:06:11 <dlongley> azaroth: Do we now re-request review from the security group or just get them to say "if you disagree with our responses otherwise we'll keep going"...
16:06:15 <dlongley> ivan: The latter is probably better.
16:06:25 <dlongley> azaroth: I will then alert Security as to the issue.
16:06:33 <dlongley> azaroth: #89.
16:06:38 <azaroth> ACTION: azaroth to alert security as to the questionnaire responses (#89) and intend to keep going
16:07:15 <dlongley> azaroth: The only other one from me was privacy. Which I have emailed the PING folks to say here's the answers we've come up to about your question about state. We're not introducing a new thing so no new privacy concerns.
16:07:30 <dlongley> azaroth: I think we should do the same for security. I'll take another action.
16:07:38 <azaroth> ACTION: azaroth to alert privacy as to response and intend to keep going
16:07:57 <dlongley> azaroth: The other two -- i18n, a11y -- are there any updates on either of those?
16:08:25 <dlongley> ivan: Nothing happened on i18n. I pinged them ... back in August, no reply. We should leave it as is and then when we get to CR we can show we did what we did and that's all we can do.
16:08:30 <dlongley> ivan: I haven't looked at a11y.
16:08:45 <dlongley> azaroth: Should we assign Benjamin for that in his absence?
16:08:48 <dlongley> ivan: Always a good tactic.
16:08:54 <ivan> zakim, who is here?
16:08:54 <Zakim> Present: azaroth, ajs6f, dlongley, rubensworks, ivan, pchampin, dlehn
16:08:56 <Zakim> On IRC I see dlehn, azaroth, ajs6f, pchampin, rubensworks, RRSAgent, Zakim, ivan, ChristopherA, bigbluehat, manu, dlongley, dorian
16:09:01 <azaroth> ACTION: bigbluehat to chase a11y HR
16:09:27 <dlongley> azaroth: Those are the horizonal reviews -- mostly in a holding pattern. Any questions about HR or anything else I've forgotten?
16:09:35 <dlongley> azaroth: Moving on.
16:09:36 <azaroth> TOPIC:  Issues:
16:09:46 <azaroth> SUBTOPIC: Encapsulate HTML processing
16:09:57 <azaroth> link: https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-syntax/pull/214
16:10:14 <dlongley> azaroth: Discussion from last week has resulted in some PRs.
16:10:20 <dlongley> ivan: Gregg not here this week.
16:10:29 <azaroth> link: https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-api/pull/135
16:10:34 <dlongley> q+
16:10:59 <azaroth> ack dlongley
16:11:49 <ivan> q+
16:11:53 <pchampin> dlongley: PRs are moving in a direction I would agree with
16:11:57 <bigbluehat> present+
16:12:20 <dlongley> azaroth: I would agree as well, pushing things into the document loader as discussed last week.
16:12:33 <ivan> q-
16:12:36 <dlongley> q+
16:12:45 <dlongley> azaroth: I guess the issue to discuss is -- is there anyone who is not comfortable yet otherwise we should accept those PRs.
16:12:52 <pchampin> scribeassist: pchampin
16:13:09 <bigbluehat> q?
16:13:10 <azaroth> q?
16:13:27 <dlongley> azaroth: Any objections to the approach?
16:13:37 <dlongley> ivan: I read through the documents and we have done the work.
16:13:48 <rubensworks> q+
16:13:56 <azaroth> ack dlongley
16:14:17 <rubensworks> q-
16:14:31 <pchampin> dlongley: I would like to wait for other reviews before merging (including me)
16:14:40 <pchampin> s/me/mine/
16:14:55 <azaroth> PROPOSAL: gkellogg to merge #135 and #214 after reviewers have approved
16:15:06 <azaroth> PROPOSAL: gkellogg to merge #135 and #214 after reviewers have approved and close the relevant issues
16:15:08 <dlongley> +1
16:15:09 <rubensworks> +1
16:15:09 <azaroth> +1
16:15:09 <bigbluehat> +1
16:15:12 <pchampin> +1
16:15:15 <ivan> +1
16:15:15 <dlehn> +1
16:15:19 <azaroth> RESOLVED: gkellogg to merge #135 and #214 after reviewers have approved and close the relevant issues
16:15:42 <dlongley> azaroth: Benjamin anything to discuss on the processing levels issue?
16:15:49 <azaroth> SUBTOPIC: Should rel="alternate" keep the base IRI of the original document?
16:15:51 <dlongley> bigbluehat: Nope, I think the last one entails this one.
16:16:13 <azaroth> ref:  https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-api/issues/139
16:17:11 <dlongley> pchampin: In the current API spec, it says whenever a rel="alternate" link is followed the base URL is set to the original URL. Meaning that relative URLs in a context document should be resolved as if found in the HTML document that is the source of the link.
16:17:55 <dlongley> pchampin: I see this partly as content negotiation which would advocate for this but also as a redirection because the client has to explicitly follow a link. I don't know of such a situation that causes this to happen. I understand the rationale but it has no precedent.
16:18:04 <dlongley> pchampin: And it creates a strange exception and that's my concern.
16:18:05 <bigbluehat> q?
16:18:19 <dlongley> q+ to say Gregg's rationale
16:18:32 <azaroth> ack dlongley
16:18:32 <Zakim> dlongley, you wanted to say Gregg's rationale
16:18:43 <bigbluehat> q+
16:18:58 <pchampin> pchampin: as I understand, Gregg thought that was consistent with how things work elsewhere.
16:19:14 <pchampin> ... And what we are already doing.
16:19:46 <pchampin> ... My position would be : let's not do something that is exceptional.
16:19:51 <ajs6f> q+
16:19:53 <azaroth> ack bigbluehat
16:20:02 <pchampin> ... But let's not break what we are doing now either.
16:20:14 <azaroth> also +1 to dlongley
16:20:21 <pchampin> s/pchampin:/dlongley:/
16:20:25 <azaroth> and to pchampin / bigbluehat about setting default @base
16:20:43 <dlongley> bigbluehat: +1 to what Dave just said but it's also about setting the default base. Maybe we can follow this up with a note around it. Context authors should be explicit about setting their own base or using URLs for their contexts because there are a host of situations where base is flaky.
16:21:10 <ivan> q+
16:21:14 <azaroth> ack ajs6f
16:21:22 <dlongley> bigbluehat: Publishing a context where you're not being explicit is dangerous anyway already -- and these things, certainly both of them combined, make it much less dependable. It could come with a declaration that context authors need to be explicit about their base or use full URLs.
16:22:17 <dlongley> ajs6f: +1 to what Dave and Ben said. If I understand correctly we're talking about a link between two resources, such that you traverse that link you're going to interpret base with the original document. You could in theory interpret with a different base -- that's not some kind of world is going to fall, but it opens the door to a lot of potential confusion. Especially in complex systems where you get a lot of reuse.
16:22:19 <azaroth> ack ivan
16:22:39 <bigbluehat> q+
16:22:42 <azaroth> ack bigbluehat
16:22:46 <dlongley> ivan: I come back to what Benjamin said -- if there is an `@base` in the `@context` document doesn't that set the base that refers to the document.
16:23:03 <dlongley> ivan: If it does, then we shouldn't do that.
16:23:08 <azaroth> q?
16:23:19 <dlongley> bigbluehat: The `@base` only works for the document it's in, not in the `@context`, only works in an inline context, not for a remote context.
16:23:23 <dlongley> ivan: Ok.
16:24:00 <bigbluehat> q+
16:24:09 <azaroth> ack bigbluehat
16:24:51 <dlongley> bigbluehat: It's not about removing rel="alternate" it's about not setting base to the original request URI but setting it to the redirect meaning rather than the original one.
16:24:55 <dlongley> q+
16:25:01 <azaroth> ack dlongley
16:25:47 <pchampin> dlongley: in schema.org, I think that all the URLs are explicit. I'm pretty sure they would want their base URL be http://schema.org, not any URL they redirect to.
16:26:00 <pchampin> ... Let's make sure we are not shooting ourselves in the foot.
16:26:13 <dlongley> ivan: schema.org uses only absolute URLs.
16:26:22 <bigbluehat> q+
16:26:33 <azaroth> ack bigbluehat
16:27:02 <dlongley> bigbluehat: Part of this closing proposal -- should we add something in the NOTE or something ... that context authors should always be explicit with their URLs because it's risky at best.
16:27:22 <dlongley> ivan: Whomever is the editor of the best practices document should make a note.
16:27:43 <azaroth> ACTION: bigbluehat or ajs6f to add use absolute URIs to BPs
16:28:25 <azaroth> PROPOSAL: Agree with the issue and by default associate base with the redirected URL not the original
16:28:33 <azaroth> +1
16:28:57 <ivan> +1
16:29:05 <rubensworks> +1
16:29:10 <dlongley> +1 (hopes this is the right decision)
16:29:18 <pchampin> +1
16:29:30 <bigbluehat> +1
16:29:32 <azaroth> RESOLVED: Agree with the issue and by default associate base with the redirected URL not the original
16:29:41 <azaroth> chair: bigbluehat
16:29:47 <ajs6f> +1
16:30:07 <bigbluehat> Subtopic: Removing "at risk" declarations on inline issues and `<base>` handling
16:30:12 <bigbluehat> https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-api/pull/137
16:31:01 <dlongley> bigbluehat: The at-riskness has been removed where it didn't match the w3c semantics of "at risk" ... and saying these are open issues instead.
16:31:20 <dlongley> bigbluehat: By removing at-risk for these other features, these will be in CR without question.
16:31:38 <ivan> q+
16:31:41 <bigbluehat> ack ivan
16:31:59 <bigbluehat> q+
16:32:02 <bigbluehat> ack bigbluehat
16:32:25 <dlongley> bigbluehat: My only hesitation is around the base tag one -- all the vagueness around base calculation is a little dodgy and it's a new feature. We don't yet have multiple implementers of this.
16:33:03 <ajs6f> q+
16:33:07 <dlongley> bigbluehat: The use of base as we have it now does map to RFC3986. That it goes through the mechanics of any wrapping documents which is the HTML base tag at this point, but it does presume that you are operating within HTML and not pulling things out and passing it off to another processor.
16:33:07 <ivan> q+
16:33:25 <dlongley> bigbluehat: So I think this is a fairly significant shift but it is only setting the base default.
16:33:27 <bigbluehat> ack ajs6f
16:33:32 <dlongley> q+
16:34:06 <dlongley> ajs6f: I'm comfortable with this change. To follow on -- it's oddly similar to what we just discussed, how much context does a processor have to consider about where the content came from.
16:34:23 <dlongley> ajs6f: I don't think we can say that no processor is in a vacuum but at the same time we don't want people to have to drag the whole Web after them.
16:34:47 <bigbluehat> ack ivan
16:34:50 <dlongley> ajs6f: And we want to do something reasonable to meet the use cases, etc. I think you're talking about a piece of data to resolve URIs and we're hedging/moving in that direction and you have to know a little more than what's directly being processed in that moment.
16:35:09 <dlongley> ivan: The usage of the base of the base and how to use it is an issue we've discussed and closed and we've closed it.
16:35:25 <bigbluehat> q+ it's a question of leaving the door open to take it out later because implementations
16:35:34 <bigbluehat> q+ to note it's a question of leaving the door open to take it out later because implementations
16:35:38 <dlongley> ivan: The only question is whether it creates implementation issues -- I don't think it does because in practice, if you use HTML getting base is a piece of case. Now we have a separation with document loader doing HTML or not, and that's all clear.
16:35:50 <ajs6f> q+ metaquestion about conformance
16:35:53 <bigbluehat> ack dlongley
16:35:55 <ajs6f> q+ to ask metaquestion about conformance
16:36:22 <pchampin> dlongley: Ivan covered most of what I was about to say.
16:36:37 <bigbluehat> ack bigbluehat
16:36:37 <Zakim> bigbluehat, you wanted to note it's a question of leaving the door open to take it out later because implementations
16:36:47 <pchampin> ... If you have an HTML parser, it is easy to get the base *at the time* you are doing the processing.
16:36:54 <bigbluehat> ack ajs6f
16:36:54 <Zakim> ajs6f, you wanted to ask metaquestion about conformance
16:37:02 <dlongley> bigbluehat: The main reason I wanted to leave this open was to get feedback from Dave -- and that works for me.
16:37:36 <dlongley> ajs6f: I said a real question about conformance -- in a situation where we're headed, with at least two flavors of document loaders. Do we need to see two different implementations of that more powerful document loader?
16:37:37 <dlongley> ivan: Yes.
16:37:43 <dlongley> q+
16:37:46 <bigbluehat> ack dlongley
16:38:15 <bigbluehat> q+
16:38:19 <bigbluehat> ack bigbluehat
16:39:14 <dlongley> bigbluehat: A quick note to highlight about "when the processing happens" that becomes a really important aspect for authors. Base can change, JSON-LD can be injected, so on -- it's a timing question. All bets are off on a lot of Web apps on what you're actually encoding based on timing.
16:39:45 <bigbluehat> PROPOSAL: approve PR #137
16:39:49 <bigbluehat> +1
16:39:51 <dlongley> +1
16:39:55 <ivan> +1
16:39:56 <ajs6f> +1
16:39:58 <dlehn> +1
16:39:59 <rubensworks> +1
16:40:09 <pchampin> +1
16:40:11 <bigbluehat> +1
16:40:28 <bigbluehat> RESOLVED: approve PR #137
16:40:58 <ivan> rrsagent, draft minutes
16:40:58 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/08/23-json-ld-minutes.html ivan
16:40:59 <ivan> zakim, bye
16:40:59 <ivan> rrsagent, bye
16:40:59 <RRSAgent> I see 4 open action items saved in https://www.w3.org/2019/08/23-json-ld-actions.rdf :
16:40:59 <RRSAgent> ACTION: azaroth to alert security as to the questionnaire responses (#89) and intend to keep going [1]
16:40:59 <RRSAgent>   recorded in https://www.w3.org/2019/08/23-json-ld-irc#T16-06-38
16:40:59 <RRSAgent> ACTION: azaroth to alert privacy as to response and intend to keep going [2]
16:40:59 <RRSAgent>   recorded in https://www.w3.org/2019/08/23-json-ld-irc#T16-07-38
16:40:59 <RRSAgent> ACTION: bigbluehat to chase a11y HR [3]
16:40:59 <RRSAgent>   recorded in https://www.w3.org/2019/08/23-json-ld-irc#T16-09-01
16:40:59 <RRSAgent> ACTION: bigbluehat or ajs6f to add use absolute URIs to BPs [4]
16:40:59 <RRSAgent>   recorded in https://www.w3.org/2019/08/23-json-ld-irc#T16-27-43
16:40:59 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees have been azaroth, ajs6f, dlongley, rubensworks, ivan, pchampin, dlehn, bigbluehat
16:40:59 <Zakim> Zakim has left #json-ld