search

w3c / transitions

W3C Transitions
https://www.w3.org/Guide/transitions/
71 stars 30 forks source link

[JSON-LD WG] CR Request for json ld11, json ld11 api, and json ld11 framing #194

Closed iherman closed 4 years ago

iherman commented 4 years ago

Document title, URLs, estimated publication date

Abstract

Status

Link to group's decision to request transition

Changes

Requirements satisfied

We have tracked our requirements in Github using issues.

Dependencies met (or not)

None.

Wide Review

All reviews, comments, etc, were tracked in Github issues, see below

Issues addressed

Formal Objections

None.

Implementation

There is a (draft) implementation report with pointers to all the tests (and instructions on how to submit implementation reports). Tests prepared for each feature of JSON-LD (some tests are covering more than one); see also the separate test documentation.

The exit criteria is that each feature (i.e., each test) must be passed by at least two, independent implementations. The WG intends to leave the CR duration open for a minimum of 3 months after the publication of the CR.

At the moment, members of the Working Groups are actively involved in different implementations in Ruby, Javascript, Python, and TypeScript (the latter is a streaming JSON-LD parser). The WG expects all four of them to submit test results. We also have contacts with an implementer active with a Java implementations. The group is also actively reaching out to implementers to find implementations in C/C++ and possibly Rust.

Note that the test suite and the implementation aim to cover the full JSON-LD 1.1, i.e., including the JSON-LD 1.0 features.

Patent disclosures

See https://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/107714/status

@gkellogg @pchampin @dlongley @BigBlueHat @azaroth42

plehegar commented 4 years ago

(expects an answer around December 6 from the Director)

swickr commented 4 years ago

Might the WG wish to state something in the Abstracts about compatibility with JSON-LD 1.0; e.g. that 1.1 is a superset of 1.0?

gkellogg commented 4 years ago

Looking at similar updates, such as SPARQL 1.1 Query and RDF 1.1 Concepts for examples, I don't find any discussion there of the relationship to their respective 1.0 versions, other than in the "Changes Since ..." sections.

That said, it would be entirely appropriate for us to do something like this.

This specification describes a superset of the features defined in JSON-LD 1.1 ( API ) and, except where noted, documents created using the 1.0 version of this specification remain compatible with JSON-LD 1.1.

In the case of the API, which is largely written for implementors, there are substantial algorithmic changes to allow accepting both 1.0 and 1.1 documents, and the algorithms describe the points of departure.

The Framing document never had a 1.0 recommendation, although it was used as a community standard. Changes are also noted there.

iherman commented 4 years ago

I would be in favour adding such remark. It is an important message to the community. I would not mind if we added this to the Frame document, too, which was used by the community, too.

iherman commented 4 years ago

@plehegar @swickr a small detail in the request. RDF issues...

Both are related to the direction setting issue.

cc: @gkellogg @pchampin @dlongley @BigBlueHat @azaroth42

  1. https://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld11/#the-rdf-json-datatype
  2. https://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld11/#the-rdf-compoundliteral-class-and-the-rdf-language-and-rdf-direction-properties
  3. https://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld11/#the-i18n-namespace
swickr commented 4 years ago

@iherman

Fine; let's coordinate on how to do this. Do you have a new NS document staged somewhere?

swickr commented 4 years ago

Transition approved.

The [JSON-LD] entry in Syntax/Informative References is superflous; that ref is not used in the spec.

Two of your RFC references in Syntax and API are using httpwg.org rather than ietf.org; you may want to fix these before Proposed Rec.

gkellogg commented 4 years ago

Transition approved.

The [JSON-LD] entry in Syntax/Informative References is superflous; that ref is not used in the spec.

That gets generated because of ReSpec data-cite attribute, which I've attempted to quash before, I'll have another go.

Two of your RFC references in Syntax and API are using httpwg.org rather than ietf.org; you may want to fix these before Proposed Rec.

+1

iherman commented 4 years ago

@swickr,

@iherman

Fine; let's coordinate on how to do this. Do you have a new NS document staged somewhere?

See https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-syntax/issues/263#issuecomment-562687010 (modulo some minor adjustment discussed in the issue). There is only one new document (i18n), the other part is an update on the good old rdf namespace file...

iherman commented 4 years ago

@swickr, while we are it...

I have prepared a document, after having seen some discussions on the semweb mailing list, which is, temporarily, at: https://www.w3.org/1999/02/rdf-syntax.html

I wonder whether we should turn this document into a bona fide https://www.w3.org/1999/02/rdf-syntax-ns.html with appropriate conneg (although the text has to be expanded a little bit with the new terms added by JSON-LD).

Of course, before doing that, we would have to send a mail to semweb mailing list to see if anybody sees any problems with it. (I guess such a mail should be sent out as an information of the new JSON-LD terms anyway.). WDYT?

Cc: @draggett

iherman commented 4 years ago

Documents have been published; closing.