IRC log of json-ld on 2019-09-06
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 15:28:07 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #json-ld
- 15:28:07 [RRSAgent]
- logging to https://www.w3.org/2019/09/06-json-ld-irc
- 15:28:08 [ivan]
- rrsagent, set log public
- 15:28:08 [ivan]
- Meeting: JSON-LD Working Group Telco
- 15:28:08 [ivan]
- Date: 2019-09-06
- 15:28:08 [ivan]
- Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-json-ld-wg/2019Sep/0000.html
- 15:28:08 [ivan]
- ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2019-09-06: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-json-ld-wg/2019Sep/0000.html
- 15:28:09 [ivan]
- Regrets+
- 15:28:09 [ivan]
- Chair: azaroth
- 15:31:37 [azaroth]
- azaroth has joined #json-ld
- 15:35:36 [azaroth]
- present+
- 15:46:06 [rubensworks]
- rubensworks has joined #json-ld
- 15:46:39 [gkellogg]
- gkellogg has joined #json-ld
- 15:50:33 [pchampin]
- pchampin has joined #json-ld
- 15:52:20 [ajs6f]
- ajs6f has joined #json-ld
- 15:59:24 [ivan]
- present+
- 16:00:26 [dlongley]
- present+
- 16:00:30 [rubensworks]
- present+
- 16:00:35 [bigbluehat]
- present+
- 16:00:40 [gkellogg]
- present+
- 16:02:03 [ajs6f]
- present+
- 16:02:24 [ivan]
- chair+ bigbluehat
- 16:02:24 [pchampin]
- present+
- 16:02:37 [ajs6f]
- I can!@
- 16:02:43 [bigbluehat]
- scribenick: ajs6f
- 16:02:51 [bigbluehat]
- Topic: Approve minutes of previous call
- 16:02:56 [bigbluehat]
- https://www.w3.org/2018/json-ld-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2019/2019-08-30-json-ld
- 16:03:01 [dlongley]
- +1
- 16:03:02 [ivan]
- +1
- 16:03:03 [azaroth]
- +1
- 16:03:03 [ajs6f]
- +1
- 16:03:05 [rubensworks]
- +0
- 16:03:05 [gkellogg]
- +1
- 16:03:12 [pchampin]
- +1
- 16:03:19 [bigbluehat]
- RESOLVED: minutes approved
- 16:03:33 [bigbluehat]
- Topic: Announcements / Reminders
- 16:03:35 [ivan]
- s/minutes/last week's minites/
- 16:03:41 [ivan]
- s/minites/minutes/
- 16:03:45 [bigbluehat]
- Subtopic: No call next week
- 16:04:06 [bigbluehat]
- Subtopic: TPAC following week
- 16:04:10 [dlehn]
- present+
- 16:04:33 [ajs6f]
- bligbluehat: no call next week because of TPAC
- 16:04:42 [azaroth]
- s/blig/big/
- 16:05:02 [bigbluehat]
- https://www.w3.org/2018/json-ld-wg/Meetings/F2F/2019.09.Fuk
- 16:06:38 [bigbluehat]
- Subtopic: Others?
- 16:06:47 [pchampin]
- q+
- 16:06:50 [bigbluehat]
- ack pchampin
- 16:06:54 [jeff_mixter]
- jeff_mixter has joined #json-ld
- 16:06:58 [jeff_mixter]
- present+
- 16:07:16 [ajs6f]
- pchampin: we have a funded WoT project starting in February
- 16:07:24 [ajs6f]
- ... might be some JSON-LD interest
- 16:07:47 [ajs6f]
- ... I was wondering if we still want a note that mentions this
- 16:07:56 [ajs6f]
- ... might some people in this porject that might contriburte to that
- 16:08:07 [ajs6f]
- s/contriburte/contribute
- 16:08:12 [ajs6f]
- ivan: just a note, not a rec
- 16:08:30 [ajs6f]
- ... no problem publishing that if we can get it in before closing teh WG
- 16:08:35 [ajs6f]
- s/teh/the
- 16:08:43 [ajs6f]
- bigbluehat: still some time to do that
- 16:09:00 [ajs6f]
- ivan: how much time we have to do this depends on how we manage time generally
- 16:09:15 [ajs6f]
- ... we have until June or July and a note can be published at the very end
- 16:09:24 [ajs6f]
- ... we're in pretty good shape re: testing and impl
- 16:09:33 [ajs6f]
- ... we may need less time to complete CR stagte
- 16:09:40 [ajs6f]
- s/stagte/stage
- 16:09:49 [ajs6f]
- ... we could publish early and close the group early
- 16:10:24 [ajs6f]
- gkellogg: thinking about the YAML note, we automated the transformations
- 16:10:30 [ajs6f]
- ... CBOR might or might not be
- 16:10:51 [ajs6f]
- ... as easy
- 16:10:58 [ajs6f]
- ivan: not likely to be as easy
- 16:11:16 [ajs6f]
- gkellogg: you can dump JSON into CBOR, altho it does many other things
- 16:11:32 [ajs6f]
- ... other than number representation I'm not sure there is much of a barrier
- 16:11:49 [ajs6f]
- ... more important is the transform CBOR -> JSON
- 16:12:02 [ajs6f]
- ... if there are people with experience at CBOR who want to help, we should keep that open
- 16:12:12 [ajs6f]
- ... unless/until we learn that we don't have enough time
- 16:12:22 [ajs6f]
- bigbluehat: and of course we have the Best Practices doc
- 16:12:36 [ajs6f]
- pchampin: okay, I'll ask those folks and see if anyone is into it
- 16:12:44 [ajs6f]
- ... before TPAC
- 16:12:53 [bigbluehat]
- Topic: Horizontal Review Updates
- 16:13:30 [azaroth]
- link: https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-wg/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Ahorizontal-review
- 16:13:47 [ajs6f]
- azaroth: we're in good shape
- 16:13:59 [ajs6f]
- ... we have alerted Accessibility folks
- 16:14:05 [ajs6f]
- ... we've done their checklist
- 16:14:12 [ajs6f]
- ... ty bigbluehat
- 16:14:20 [ajs6f]
- ... I've told Privacy that we thikn we are in good shape
- 16:14:39 [ajs6f]
- ... they responded with thanks and no further issues
- 16:14:50 [ajs6f]
- ... ivan, what's the process from here?
- 16:15:07 [ajs6f]
- ivan: tag it as done and when we write a request to go to CR we can point to it
- 16:15:20 [ajs6f]
- azaroth: DONE
- 16:16:05 [ajs6f]
- azaroth: we did the Security questionairre in June
- 16:16:15 [ajs6f]
- ... I pinged them a few times with no response
- 16:16:38 [ajs6f]
- ... and latterly I told them we consider it done, but if they have any concerns to raise them with us at TPAC
- 16:16:42 [ajs6f]
- ... I heard nothing back
- 16:16:50 [ajs6f]
- ... I say we call this done
- 16:17:02 [ajs6f]
- ivan: that works, and the same goes for Internationalization
- 16:17:17 [ajs6f]
- azaroth: we are good, even if we only got one official signoff
- 16:17:25 [ajs6f]
- ivan: what about Accessibility
- 16:17:40 [ajs6f]
- bigbluehat: I've heard no problems from them
- 16:17:54 [ajs6f]
- ... I bet someone will catch us in the hallway at TPAC and tell us that we are fine
- 16:18:03 [ajs6f]
- ivan: we're probably low on thei priorities
- 16:18:33 [ajs6f]
- azaroth: if avnish (sp?) can work with it that seems like as good an Acceissiblity review as we get
- 16:18:49 [ajs6f]
- ivan: no he looks only at the accessibility of the docs themselves
- 16:18:55 [ajs6f]
- ... different question
- 16:19:05 [dlongley]
- s/avnish/Avneesh/
- 16:19:11 [ajs6f]
- ... that's not the same as true review of the rec itself and problems that might arise from its use
- 16:19:39 [ajs6f]
- azaroth: finally we have the short names issue
- 16:19:46 [azaroth]
- https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-wg/issues/103
- 16:19:50 [ajs6f]
- ivan: it turns out we can do what we wanted
- 16:20:14 [ajs6f]
- ... when we publish the rec from that point on JSON-LD with no qualifier will point at the latest rec
- 16:20:43 [ajs6f]
- ... you can also do JSON-LD/latest and there are some other combinations, look at the issue for details
- 16:20:55 [ajs6f]
- ... but our most important point is that LSON-LD itself will point at the latest
- 16:21:17 [ajs6f]
- azaroth: I put together some nice stats for Karly (sp?)
- 16:21:24 [ajs6f]
- ... she said they were great
- 16:21:34 [dlongley]
- s/Karly/Coralie/
- 16:21:37 [ajs6f]
- ... and added them to the Members' update for September
- 16:22:20 [ajs6f]
- ivan: I also spoke with her and she was happy for the info and put it various Members' comms
- 16:22:32 [ajs6f]
- ... I think she might put together a slide for Jeff
- 16:22:56 [ajs6f]
- gkellogg: too many TPACs have gone by that would make you think that the only thing W3C does is HTML
- 16:23:11 [ajs6f]
- azaroth: at the last one the Wed was disheartening
- 16:23:16 [ajs6f]
- ... we can turn that around
- 16:23:22 [azaroth]
- q?
- 16:23:41 [azaroth]
- TOPIC: Issues
- 16:23:58 [azaroth]
- SUBTOPIC: Framing blank nodes
- 16:24:24 [ajs6f]
- azaroth: last discussion we agreed that we couldn't solve it on a call
- 16:24:33 [ajs6f]
- ... so gkellog and dlongley went off to look at it
- 16:25:04 [ajs6f]
- gkellogg: we found a problem in a framing test where @container : @graph got mangled in re-expansion
- 16:25:12 [ajs6f]
- ... a bug in the compaction algo
- 16:25:46 [ajs6f]
- ... if the value is an array, it puts them in an @include block
- 16:26:21 [dlongley]
- s/@include/`@include`/
- 16:26:21 [ajs6f]
- ... i tried [s solution] but it turned out not to be defined well enough
- 16:26:35 [dlongley]
- s/`@include`/`@included`/
- 16:26:48 [azaroth]
- q?
- 16:26:57 [ajs6f]
- azaroth: all of that is solved and merged?
- 16:27:00 [ajs6f]
- gkellogg: yep
- 16:27:21 [azaroth]
- q?
- 16:28:50 [gkellogg]
- https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-api/pull/146
- 16:29:02 [gkellogg]
- https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-api/pull/145
- 16:29:15 [azaroth]
- PROPOSAL: Close framing #27 as not being the issue, and the real issues being addressed is api #143, solved by api # 145 and #146
- 16:29:24 [azaroth]
- +1
- 16:29:25 [bigbluehat]
- +1
- 16:29:28 [dlongley]
- +1
- 16:29:30 [gkellogg]
- +1
- 16:29:32 [ivan]
- +1
- 16:29:37 [ajs6f]
- +1
- 16:29:40 [azaroth]
- RESOLVE: Close framing #27 as not being the issue, and the real issues being addressed is api #143, solved by api # 145 and #146
- 16:29:45 [pchampin]
- +1
- 16:29:54 [rubensworks]
- +1
- 16:30:07 [azaroth]
- PROPOSAL: Close api #143 as resolved by api #145 and #146
- 16:30:11 [azaroth]
- +1
- 16:30:12 [ivan]
- +1
- 16:30:13 [rubensworks]
- +1
- 16:30:14 [gkellogg]
- +1
- 16:30:14 [ajs6f]
- +1
- 16:30:14 [pchampin]
- +1
- 16:30:16 [bigbluehat]
- +1
- 16:30:21 [dlongley]
- +1
- 16:30:28 [azaroth]
- RESOLVED: Close api #143 as resolved by api #145 and #146
- 16:31:04 [azaroth]
- https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-syntax/issues
- 16:31:07 [ajs6f]
- azaroth: now lookig at syntax issues
- 16:31:20 [ajs6f]
- ... we have two that are really styling
- 16:31:30 [ajs6f]
- ... and two that we have already deferred
- 16:31:36 [azaroth]
- https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-api/issues
- 16:31:38 [ajs6f]
- .... no open non-defferred issues for syntax
- 16:31:48 [ajs6f]
- ... for API we have two open non-deferred issues
- 16:32:05 [azaroth]
- https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-framing/issues
- 16:32:23 [ajs6f]
- ... for framing we have issue 7 and two that we deferred to future versions
- 16:32:36 [azaroth]
- https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-wg/issues
- 16:32:38 [ajs6f]
- ... in the WG metalist of issues
- 16:32:50 [ajs6f]
- .. just some editorial updates on bigbluehat and myself
- 16:33:06 [ajs6f]
- ... there are the horizontal reviews and short names issue that we talked thorugh earlier
- 16:33:51 [ajs6f]
- ivan: what guiding principles document?
- 16:34:00 [ajs6f]
- azaroth: the one from the very beginning
- 16:34:18 [ajs6f]
- ... we never adding things like horizontal review to those guiding principles, but it's a bit late
- 16:34:43 [ajs6f]
- ivan: I see something "updating json-ld.org" on bigbluehat
- 16:34:45 [pchampin]
- q+
- 16:34:58 [azaroth]
- ack pchampin
- 16:34:59 [ajs6f]
- bigbluehat: I will work on that before TR-- it's in the CG
- 16:35:22 [gkellogg]
- q+
- 16:35:35 [ajs6f]
- pchampin: there is no recorded issue about the fact that the specs for 1.1 refer to 1.0 docs via the short name JSON-LD, without qualifier
- 16:35:37 [azaroth]
- ack gkellogg
- 16:35:39 [ajs6f]
- gkellogg: I think I fixed that
- 16:35:52 [ajs6f]
- pchampin: perhaps I wasn't seeing the latest versions
- 16:36:00 [ajs6f]
- gkellogg: yes, I used the timestmaped URI
- 16:36:14 [ajs6f]
- ... what Respec does for JSON-LD uses the unversioned URI
- 16:36:28 [ajs6f]
- ... which would have had that problem when we updated
- 16:36:47 [ajs6f]
- ... and our internal links already use precise URIs
- 16:36:52 [ajs6f]
- pchampin: okay, all good!
- 16:37:25 [ajs6f]
- gkellogg: Respec does keep breaking and marcus said he would fix these things
- 16:37:35 [ajs6f]
- ... once those are done we can publiush another heartbeat draft
- 16:37:38 [azaroth]
- q?
- 16:37:39 [ajs6f]
- ... that might it for us
- 16:38:13 [ajs6f]
- ivan: it might be good to look for a "preview CR" request, to see what we need for that
- 16:38:19 [azaroth]
- ACTION: ivan to send to -chairs example CR request
- 16:38:41 [ajs6f]
- azaroth: after which we can look at the example and work with it
- 16:38:44 [ajs6f]
- ... other issues?
- 16:38:53 [gkellogg]
- https://raw.githack.com/w3c/json-ld-api/reports/reports/index.html#JSON-LD-HTML-tests
- 16:39:14 [ajs6f]
- azaroth: I mean any new technical issues
- 16:39:34 [ajs6f]
- ... if not, we're done with technical issues and we'll spend TPAC carousing wildly
- 16:39:43 [ajs6f]
- ... we'll request CR after TPAC
- 16:39:55 [ajs6f]
- ... we need to get people to get onto implementation
- 16:40:04 [ajs6f]
- ... and submitting reports thereof
- 16:40:19 [ajs6f]
- ... that al conform to some part of the work
- 16:40:33 [ajs6f]
- ... and for all features there are at least 2 impls that do that
- 16:40:46 [ajs6f]
- ... which is not to say that any given impl must do all features-- that's not true
- 16:40:55 [azaroth]
- TOPIC: Implementation Report
- 16:40:57 [azaroth]
- https://raw.githack.com/w3c/json-ld-api/reports/reports/index.html
- 16:41:25 [ajs6f]
- gkellogg: I have software to collate the reports that get sent in and generate this file
- 16:41:39 [ajs6f]
- ... this includes all the tests that were included
- 16:41:58 [ajs6f]
- ... at the beginning there is a discussion of requirements for subimssions
- 16:42:24 [ajs6f]
- ... submissions are found in a directory which is processed by the software
- 16:42:44 [ajs6f]
- ... producing an HTML output with a column for each impl and each test the result obtained
- 16:43:12 [ajs6f]
- ... there are details like test options that we don't find here
- 16:43:15 [ivan]
- q+
- 16:43:19 [ajs6f]
- ... it is many pages
- 16:43:24 [azaroth]
- ack ivan
- 16:43:37 [azaroth]
- q+ re test definitions
- 16:43:41 [ajs6f]
- ivan: I have seen this type of product from gkellogg before and I thikn it's perfect
- 16:43:44 [dlehn]
- add a browser stress test and add syntax highlighting for all the tests input/output
- 16:44:29 [ajs6f]
- ... i understand that the tests in this report cover all of JSON-LD< including 1.0 stuff
- 16:44:40 [ajs6f]
- gkellogg: we have 1.0 stuff, 1.1 stuff, and both
- 16:44:59 [ajs6f]
- ... we don't include 1.0 stuff, just stuff that is relavent for both
- 16:45:45 [ajs6f]
- ... we test the entire behavior
- 16:46:01 [ajs6f]
- ivan: is it worth indicating what's new? the stuff that is new in 1.1?
- 16:46:13 [ajs6f]
- azaroth: seems valuable
- 16:46:17 [ajs6f]
- gkellogg: the data is there
- 16:46:27 [ajs6f]
- ... we could annotate the tests as appropriate
- 16:46:40 [azaroth]
- ack azaroth
- 16:46:40 [Zakim]
- azaroth, you wanted to discuss test definitions
- 16:46:48 [ajs6f]
- ivan: in the column for test you could add a symbol to indicate something new for 1.1
- 16:47:06 [ajs6f]
- azaroth: for test defns, which are quite long, could we make it a separate HTML file?
- 16:47:13 [ajs6f]
- ... rather than including it in-line
- 16:47:29 [ajs6f]
- gkellogg: or we could create HTML test manifests and link to them
- 16:47:58 [ajs6f]
- ... in json-ld.org we had some PHP that listed out the tests
- 16:48:23 [ajs6f]
- ... we could do something template-driven to the same purpose
- 16:48:31 [dlehn]
- q+
- 16:48:39 [azaroth]
- ack dlehn
- 16:48:41 [ajs6f]
- ... then we update the report so that the test links point at the right places int eh test manifestos
- 16:49:00 [ajs6f]
- dlehn: shold we not put the version numbers of the various libraries on their?
- 16:49:06 [ajs6f]
- ... support changes with time.
- 16:49:53 [ajs6f]
- gkellogg: if you look in "What to Submit" we could put a slot for version and then use that in the "Descrption of test subject"
- 16:50:15 [ajs6f]
- dlehn: did the URI format change much?
- 16:50:20 [ajs6f]
- gkellogg: nope, same thing
- 16:50:25 [azaroth]
- ACTION: gkellogg to add software version DOAP property to report template
- 16:50:31 [ajs6f]
- dlehn: what does it do if you skip tests?
- 16:50:40 [ajs6f]
- gkellogg: I think it says something like "Untested"
- 16:50:48 [azaroth]
- ACTION: gkellogg to look at taking out test definitions and replacing with links to test manifests
- 16:50:57 [ajs6f]
- ... there is Pass, Fail and some other statuses
- 16:51:14 [azaroth]
- q+ re dogfood of JSON-LD and Turtle
- 16:51:28 [ajs6f]
- .... doesn't matter than much what the current level of conformance but we could grease the wheel
- 16:51:35 [azaroth]
- ack azaroth
- 16:51:35 [Zakim]
- azaroth, you wanted to discuss dogfood of JSON-LD and Turtle
- 16:51:39 [ajs6f]
- dlehn: python code hasn't yet been updated
- 16:52:03 [ajs6f]
- azaroth: it currently asks people to submit Turtle-- could we make that JSON-LD
- 16:52:10 [ajs6f]
- gkellogg: sure, we could
- 16:52:32 [ajs6f]
- ... but devs seem happy with Turtle
- 16:52:43 [ajs6f]
- ... but I would work with JSON-LD if someone gives it to me
- 16:52:43 [azaroth]
- q?
- 16:54:19 [azaroth]
- TOPIC: TPAC face to face arrangements
- 16:54:53 [bigbluehat]
- q+
- 16:54:56 [azaroth]
- ack bigbluehat
- 16:55:44 [ajs6f]
- [shared discussion of travel arrangements]
- 16:58:08 [ajs6f]
- azaroth: has anyone asked for Observer status?
- 16:58:16 [ajs6f]
- ivan: not that I saw, and you would have been notified
- 16:58:52 [ajs6f]
- gkellogg: shoudl we arrange a Wed update for people?
- 16:59:03 [ajs6f]
- azaroth: given where we are at, that seems reasonable
- 16:59:08 [azaroth]
- https://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC/2019/SessionIdeas
- 16:59:19 [ajs6f]
- ivan: wait I was wrong!
- 16:59:21 [ivan]
- https://www.w3.org/register/tpac2019/registrants#meeting-85
- 16:59:21 [azaroth]
- ACTION: gkellogg to add session idea for https://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC/2019/SessionIdeas
- 16:59:30 [ajs6f]
- ... there are quite a nnumber of requestors
- 16:59:30 [dlongley]
- https://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC/2019/SessionIdeas#Linked_Data_Security <-- may be of interest to people here
- 16:59:44 [dlongley]
- q+
- 17:00:18 [azaroth]
- ack dlongley
- 17:00:25 [ajs6f]
- ivan: experience shows that people do sin up but rarely stay around
- 17:00:44 [ajs6f]
- dlongely: manu is trying to put together a LD security topic on Wed
- 17:01:00 [ajs6f]
- ivan: and the DID WG has been announced
- 17:01:17 [ajs6f]
- ivan: dlongley, you will be on it?
- 17:01:20 [ajs6f]
- dlongely: yep
- 17:01:32 [ajs6f]
- azaroth: I will try to participate
- 17:01:42 [ajs6f]
- ivan:bigbluehat is signed up
- 17:02:04 [ajs6f]
- ... and two guys coming, registered as group participants, who have never been on any of our calls
- 17:02:17 [ajs6f]
- .... someone frmo Siemens and somone from [Didn't catch the name]
- 17:02:29 [ajs6f]
- pchampin: I don't know them well but met one
- 17:02:50 [ajs6f]
- azaroth: and it's the top of the hour. See (some of) you in japan
- 17:02:59 [ajs6f]
- ivan: we will have a call the week after TPAC
- 17:03:14 [azaroth]
- TOPIC: Adjourn
- 17:03:25 [ivan]
- rrsagent, draft minutes
- 17:03:25 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2019/09/06-json-ld-minutes.html ivan
- 17:03:25 [ivan]
- zakim, bye
- 17:03:25 [ivan]
- rrsagent, bye
- 17:03:25 [RRSAgent]
- I see 4 open action items saved in https://www.w3.org/2019/09/06-json-ld-actions.rdf :
- 17:03:25 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: ivan to send to -chairs example CR request [1]
- 17:03:25 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in https://www.w3.org/2019/09/06-json-ld-irc#T16-38-19
- 17:03:25 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: gkellogg to add software version DOAP property to report template [2]
- 17:03:25 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in https://www.w3.org/2019/09/06-json-ld-irc#T16-50-25
- 17:03:25 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: gkellogg to look at taking out test definitions and replacing with links to test manifests [3]
- 17:03:25 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in https://www.w3.org/2019/09/06-json-ld-irc#T16-50-48
- 17:03:25 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: gkellogg to add session idea for https://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC/2019/SessionIdeas [4]
- 17:03:25 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in https://www.w3.org/2019/09/06-json-ld-irc#T16-59-21-1
- 17:03:25 [Zakim]
- leaving. As of this point the attendees have been azaroth, ivan, dlongley, rubensworks, bigbluehat, gkellogg, ajs6f, pchampin, dlehn, jeff_mixter
- 17:03:25 [Zakim]
- Zakim has left #json-ld