<ivan> chair+ bigbluehat

I can!@

<bigbluehat> scribenick: ajs6f

Approve minutes of previous call

<bigbluehat> https://www.w3.org/2018/json-ld-wg/Meetings/Minutes/2019/2019-08-30-json-ld

<dlongley> +1

<ivan> +1

<azaroth> +1

+1

<rubensworks> +0

<gkellogg> +1

<pchampin> +1

RESOLUTION: last week's minutes approved

Announcements / Reminders

<bigbluehat> Subtopic: No call next week

<bigbluehat> Subtopic: TPAC following week

bigbluehat: no call next week because of TPAC

<bigbluehat> https://www.w3.org/2018/json-ld-wg/Meetings/F2F/2019.09.Fuk

<bigbluehat> Subtopic: Others?

pchampin: we have a funded WoT project starting in February
... might be some JSON-LD interest
... I was wondering if we still want a note that mentions this
... might some people in this porject that might contribute to that

ivan: just a note, not a rec
... no problem publishing that if we can get it in before closing the WG

bigbluehat: still some time to do that

ivan: how much time we have to do this depends on how we manage time generally
... we have until June or July and a note can be published at the very end
... we're in pretty good shape re: testing and impl
... we may need less time to complete CR stage
... we could publish early and close the group early

gkellogg: thinking about the YAML note, we automated the transformations
... CBOR might or might not be
... as easy

ivan: not likely to be as easy

gkellogg: you can dump JSON into CBOR, altho it does many other things
... other than number representation I'm not sure there is much of a barrier
... more important is the transform CBOR -> JSON
... if there are people with experience at CBOR who want to help, we should keep that open
... unless/until we learn that we don't have enough time

bigbluehat: and of course we have the Best Practices doc

pchampin: okay, I'll ask those folks and see if anyone is into it
... before TPAC

Horizontal Review Updates

<azaroth> link: https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-wg/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Ahorizontal-review

azaroth: we're in good shape
... we have alerted Accessibility folks
... we've done their checklist
... ty bigbluehat
... I've told Privacy that we thikn we are in good shape
... they responded with thanks and no further issues
... ivan, what's the process from here?

ivan: tag it as done and when we write a request to go to CR we can point to it

azaroth: DONE
... we did the Security questionairre in June
... I pinged them a few times with no response
... and latterly I told them we consider it done, but if they have any concerns to raise them with us at TPAC
... I heard nothing back
... I say we call this done

ivan: that works, and the same goes for Internationalization

azaroth: we are good, even if we only got one official signoff

ivan: what about Accessibility

bigbluehat: I've heard no problems from them
... I bet someone will catch us in the hallway at TPAC and tell us that we are fine

ivan: we're probably low on thei priorities

azaroth: if Avneesh (sp?) can work with it that seems like as good an Acceissiblity review as we get

ivan: no he looks only at the accessibility of the docs themselves
... different question
... that's not the same as true review of the rec itself and problems that might arise from its use

azaroth: finally we have the short names issue

<azaroth> https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-wg/issues/103

ivan: it turns out we can do what we wanted
... when we publish the rec from that point on JSON-LD with no qualifier will point at the latest rec
... you can also do JSON-LD/latest and there are some other combinations, look at the issue for details
... but our most important point is that LSON-LD itself will point at the latest

azaroth: I put together some nice stats for Coralie (sp?)
... she said they were great
... and added them to the Members' update for September

ivan: I also spoke with her and she was happy for the info and put it various Members' comms
... I think she might put together a slide for Jeff

gkellogg: too many TPACs have gone by that would make you think that the only thing W3C does is HTML

azaroth: at the last one the Wed was disheartening
... we can turn that around

Issues

<azaroth> SUBTOPIC: Framing blank nodes

azaroth: last discussion we agreed that we couldn't solve it on a call
... so gkellog and dlongley went off to look at it

gkellogg: we found a problem in a framing test where @container : @graph got mangled in re-expansion
... a bug in the compaction algo
... if the value is an array, it puts them in an `@included` block
... i tried [s solution] but it turned out not to be defined well enough

azaroth: all of that is solved and merged?

gkellogg: yep

<gkellogg> https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-api/pull/146

<gkellogg> https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-api/pull/145

<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

<azaroth> +1

<bigbluehat> +1

<dlongley> +1

<gkellogg> +1

<ivan> +1

+1

<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

<pchampin> +1

<rubensworks> +1

<azaroth> PROPOSAL: Close api #143 as resolved by api #145 and #146

<azaroth> +1

<ivan> +1

<rubensworks> +1

<gkellogg> +1

+1

<pchampin> +1

<bigbluehat> +1

<dlongley> +1

RESOLUTION: Close api #143 as resolved by api #145 and #146

<azaroth> https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-syntax/issues

azaroth: now lookig at syntax issues
... we have two that are really styling
... and two that we have already deferred

<azaroth> https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-api/issues

azaroth: no open non-defferred issues for syntax
... for API we have two open non-deferred issues

<azaroth> https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-framing/issues

azaroth: for framing we have issue 7 and two that we deferred to future versions

<azaroth> https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-wg/issues

azaroth: in the WG metalist of issues
... just some editorial updates on bigbluehat and myself
... there are the horizontal reviews and short names issue that we talked thorugh earlier

ivan: what guiding principles document?

azaroth: the one from the very beginning
... we never adding things like horizontal review to those guiding principles, but it's a bit late

ivan: I see something "updating json-ld.org" on bigbluehat

bigbluehat: I will work on that before TR-- it's in the CG

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

gkellogg: I think I fixed that

pchampin: perhaps I wasn't seeing the latest versions

gkellogg: yes, I used the timestmaped URI
... what Respec does for JSON-LD uses the unversioned URI
... which would have had that problem when we updated
... and our internal links already use precise URIs

pchampin: okay, all good!

gkellogg: Respec does keep breaking and marcus said he would fix these things
... once those are done we can publiush another heartbeat draft
... that might it for us

ivan: it might be good to look for a "preview CR" request, to see what we need for that

<azaroth> ACTION: ivan to send to -chairs example CR request

azaroth: after which we can look at the example and work with it
... other issues?

<gkellogg> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/json-ld-api/reports/reports/index.html#JSON-LD-HTML-tests

azaroth: I mean any new technical issues
... if not, we're done with technical issues and we'll spend TPAC carousing wildly
... we'll request CR after TPAC
... we need to get people to get onto implementation
... and submitting reports thereof
... that al conform to some part of the work
... and for all features there are at least 2 impls that do that
... which is not to say that any given impl must do all features-- that's not true

Implementation Report

<azaroth> https://raw.githack.com/w3c/json-ld-api/reports/reports/index.html

gkellogg: I have software to collate the reports that get sent in and generate this file
... this includes all the tests that were included
... at the beginning there is a discussion of requirements for subimssions
... submissions are found in a directory which is processed by the software
... producing an HTML output with a column for each impl and each test the result obtained
... there are details like test options that we don't find here
... it is many pages

ivan: I have seen this type of product from gkellogg before and I thikn it's perfect

<dlehn> add a browser stress test and add syntax highlighting for all the tests input/output

ivan: i understand that the tests in this report cover all of JSON-LD< including 1.0 stuff

gkellogg: we have 1.0 stuff, 1.1 stuff, and both
... we don't include 1.0 stuff, just stuff that is relavent for both
... we test the entire behavior

ivan: is it worth indicating what's new? the stuff that is new in 1.1?

azaroth: seems valuable

gkellogg: the data is there
... we could annotate the tests as appropriate

<Zakim> azaroth, you wanted to discuss test definitions

ivan: in the column for test you could add a symbol to indicate something new for 1.1

azaroth: for test defns, which are quite long, could we make it a separate HTML file?
... rather than including it in-line

gkellogg: or we could create HTML test manifests and link to them
... in json-ld.org we had some PHP that listed out the tests
... we could do something template-driven to the same purpose
... then we update the report so that the test links point at the right places int eh test manifestos

dlehn: shold we not put the version numbers of the various libraries on their?
... support changes with time.

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"

dlehn: did the URI format change much?

gkellogg: nope, same thing

<azaroth> ACTION: gkellogg to add software version DOAP property to report template

dlehn: what does it do if you skip tests?

gkellogg: I think it says something like "Untested"

<azaroth> ACTION: gkellogg to look at taking out test definitions and replacing with links to test manifests

gkellogg: there is Pass, Fail and some other statuses
... doesn't matter than much what the current level of conformance but we could grease the wheel

<Zakim> azaroth, you wanted to discuss dogfood of JSON-LD and Turtle

dlehn: python code hasn't yet been updated

azaroth: it currently asks people to submit Turtle-- could we make that JSON-LD

gkellogg: sure, we could
... but devs seem happy with Turtle
... but I would work with JSON-LD if someone gives it to me

TPAC face to face arrangements

[shared discussion of travel arrangements]

azaroth: has anyone asked for Observer status?

ivan: not that I saw, and you would have been notified

gkellogg: shoudl we arrange a Wed update for people?

azaroth: given where we are at, that seems reasonable

<azaroth> https://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC/2019/SessionIdeas

ivan: wait I was wrong!

<ivan> https://www.w3.org/register/tpac2019/registrants#meeting-85

<azaroth> ACTION: gkellogg to add session idea for https://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC/2019/SessionIdeas

ivan: there are quite a nnumber of requestors

<dlongley> https://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC/2019/SessionIdeas#Linked_Data_Security <-- may be of interest to people here

ivan: experience shows that people do sin up but rarely stay around

dlongely: manu is trying to put together a LD security topic on Wed

ivan: and the DID WG has been announced
... dlongley, you will be on it?

dlongely: yep

azaroth: I will try to participate

ivan: bigbluehat is signed up
... and two guys coming, registered as group participants, who have never been on any of our calls
... someone frmo Siemens and somone from [Didn't catch the name]

pchampin: I don't know them well but met one

azaroth: and it's the top of the hour. See (some of) you in japan

ivan: we will have a call the week after TPAC

Adjourn

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.154  of Date: 2018/09/25 16:35:56  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/minutes/last week's minites/
Succeeded: s/minites/minutes/
Succeeded: s/blig/big/
Succeeded: s/contriburte/contribute/
Succeeded: s/teh/the/
Succeeded: s/stagte/stage/
Succeeded: s/avnish/Avneesh/
Succeeded: s/Karly/Coralie/
Succeeded: s/@include/`@include`/
Succeeded: s/`@include`/`@included`/
Present: azaroth ivan dlongley rubensworks bigbluehat gkellogg ajs6f pchampin dlehn jeff_mixter
Regrets: ivan
Found ScribeNick: ajs6f
Inferring Scribes: ajs6f
Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-json-ld-wg/2019Sep/0000.html
WARNING: Could not parse date.  Unknown month name "09": 2019-09-06
Format should be like "Date: 31 Jan 2004"

WARNING: No date found!  Assuming today.  (Hint: Specify
the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.)
Or specify the date like this:
<dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002

People with action items: gkellogg ivan

WARNING: IRC log location not specified!  (You can ignore this 
warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain 
a link to the original IRC log.)