Meeting minutes
Announcements and Introductions
gkellogg: tentative TPAC schedule at https://
bigbluehat: There is a requested schedule shift, as many participants are in Japan and late friday would be early saturday, but that creates a conflict with the CG time on Thursday.
… WoT would like the 14:30 slot on Thursday, which is a joint meeting with JSON-LD WG/CG.
… WoT is a major user of JSON-LD, so it will be important for us to sync up with them.
gkellogg: I'm in favor of consolodating with the Thursday afternoon slot.
YAML-LD
anatoly-scherbakov: I have some PRs with tests that have been merged. I have some more test issues to work through.
… I may need some changes to PyLd to address some issues in my implementation.
CBOR-LD
JSON-LD Issue Discussion
https://
w3c/json-ld-syntax#425
<gb> Issue 425 how to "retype" rdf:JSON to geo:geoJSONLiteral? (by VladimirAlexiev)
gkellogg: using `@container` might work.
dlehn: Is this round-trippable?
gkellogg: I believe so, but that needs to be figured out.
dlehn: The JSON Literal already has problems with arrays.
<niklasl> "stuff": [{"@json": [1, 2, 3], "@type": "cdt:List"}] -- might work
dlehn: Consider w3c/json-ld-api#599
<gb> CLOSED Issue 599 Test new GH action (by pchampin)
dlehn: Consider w3c/json-ld-api#559
<niklasl> (IIRC "@container": ["@language", "@set"] is a thing already; so e.g. "@container": ["@set", "@json"] would work too I guess.)
<gb> Pull Request 559 Add JSON literal tests. (by davidlehn)
dlehn: and w3c/json-ld-api#560
<gb> Issue 560 Various `@json` processing issues. (by davidlehn) [test:missing-coverage] [ErratumRaised]
dlehn: This is where I was trying to figure out these issues for `@json`.
… It may be that the solutions can be treated similarly.
gkellogg: I think we can handle this through scope allowed through the re-charter.
niklasl: I need to look more at the details.
Open Discussion
JSON-LD-star
gkellogg: I think we can start working on JSON-LD-star issues again.
<niklasl> +1
dlehn: Do you see the specs merging?
<niklasl> Yes. Some form of RDF-star is intended to be part of RDF 1.2, and then JSON-LD 1.2 would follow.
gkellogg: It's part of RDF 1.2, so should be part of JSON-LD 1.2 as well.
gkellogg: I'd like to see some updates to RDC that consider RDF-star.
dlehn: Does this flow into SHEX and SHACL and so forth?
TallTed: Those projects are independent, but the expectation is that they will evolve.
… The new SPARQL group could pick up ShEx.
… Rather, the SHACL group could adopt ShEx.
dlehn: The lack of support for datasets is an issue.
… I'd rather work with SHACL than JSON Schema.
TallTed: If you're working with JSON, then JSON Schema is a good way to go.
TallTed: Note that SHACL isn't about semantics, it's a syntactical verifier. It's not like RDB referential integrity.
charter renewal
pchampin: No recent progress.
… We should be able to submit our request soon.
… There were some comments by bigbluehat about scope and adding a new document.
Website
dlehn: We're looking to host on Cloudflare; I wasn't sure how to deal with .htaccess.
… How much do we need to continue to support?
gkellogg: CORS headers?
dlehn: I'm not sure what we have in there is live or not.
… There is a temporary website; it's just .htaccess stuff that is a problem.
<dlehn> https://
gkellogg: maybe look at server logs to see what features are used.
gkellogg: I would say move it over, and we'll deal with issues that come up.
<dlehn> json-ld/
<gb> Issue 778 RFCs (by davidlehn)
dlehn: I need to write up some stuff about RFC; there are things DB is doing that should be standardized.
… For example, safe mode.
<Zakim> bigbluehat, you wanted to ask TPAC questions toward the end
bigbluehat: I think filing issues against an existing spec is ideal, but may not be clear what this should be.
… Is the json-ld.org issues repo the right place, or one of the specs.
dlehn: I have an idea for this, but need to write up a proposal.
gkellogg: perhaps discuss next time?
Next call
Next call June 26.
bigbluehat: We have conflicts with VCWG; our joint meeting with RDF-star conflicts with VCWG.
… If we try to move things around we may run into problems.
… We may need to work with RDF-star to move that particular meeting time.
pchampin: RDF-star meets on Tuesday and Thursday mornings. If we move to Tuesday morning, we'd conflict with DID, but that might not be a problem.
… Tuesday is not critical; I can ask Alex to make the change. I don't think the RDF-star chairs have a preference.
bigbluehat: There's also the federated identity WG which has conflicts.