The W3C JSON-LD Community Group

Go Back

W3C Logo


Minutes for 2024-06-12

Gregg Kellogg is scribing.

Topic: Announcements and Introductions

Benjamin Young: 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.
Gregg Kellogg: I'm in favor of consolodating with the Thursday afternoon slot.

Topic: 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.

Topic: CBOR-LD

Topic: JSON-LD Issue Discussion

Subtopic: -> Issue 425 how to "retype" rdf:JSON to geo:geoJSONLiteral? (by VladimirAlexiev)
Gregg Kellogg: Using `@container` might work.
David I. Lehn: Is this round-trippable?
Gregg Kellogg: I believe so, but that needs to be figured out.
David I. Lehn: The JSON Literal already has problems with arrays.
Niklas Lindström: "Stuff": [{"@json": [1, 2, 3], "@type": "cdt:List"}] -- might work
David I. Lehn: Consider w3c/json-ld-api#599 -> CLOSED Issue 599 Test new GH action (by pchampin)
David I. Lehn: Consider w3c/json-ld-api#559
Niklas Lindström: (IIRC "@container": ["@language", "@set"] is a thing already; so e.g. "@container": ["@set", "@json"] would work too I guess.) -> Pull Request 559 Add JSON literal tests. (by davidlehn)
David I. Lehn: And w3c/json-ld-api#560 -> Issue 560 Various `@json` processing issues. (by davidlehn) [test:missing-coverage] [ErratumRaised]
David I. Lehn: This is where I was trying to figure out these issues for `@json`.
... It may be that the solutions can be treated similarly.
Gregg Kellogg: I think we can handle this through scope allowed through the re-charter.
Niklas Lindström: I need to look more at the details.

Topic: Open Discussion

Subtopic: JSON-LD-star

Gregg Kellogg: I think we can start working on JSON-LD-star issues again.
Niklas Lindström: +1
David I. Lehn: Do you see the specs merging?
Niklas Lindström: Yes. Some form of RDF-star is intended to be part of RDF 1.2, and then JSON-LD 1.2 would follow.
Gregg Kellogg: It's part of RDF 1.2, so should be part of JSON-LD 1.2 as well.
Gregg Kellogg: I'd like to see some updates to RDC that consider RDF-star.
David I. Lehn: Does this flow into SHEX and SHACL and so forth?
Ted Thibodeau Jr.: 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.
David I. Lehn: The lack of support for datasets is an issue.
... I'd rather work with SHACL than JSON Schema.
Ted Thibodeau Jr.: If you're working with JSON, then JSON Schema is a good way to go.
Ted Thibodeau Jr.: Note that SHACL isn't about semantics, it's a syntactical verifier. It's not like RDB referential integrity.

Subtopic: charter renewal

Pierre-Antoine Champin: 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.

Subtopic: Website

David I. Lehn: 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?
Gregg Kellogg: CORS headers?
David I. Lehn: 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.
Gregg Kellogg: Maybe look at server logs to see what features are used.
Gregg Kellogg: I would say move it over, and we'll deal with issues that come up.
David I. Lehn: I need to write up some stuff about RFC; there are things DB is doing that should be standardized.
... For example, safe mode.
Benjamin Young: I think filing issues against an existing spec is ideal, but may not be clear what this should be.
... Is the issues repo the right place, or one of the specs.
David I. Lehn: I have an idea for this, but need to write up a proposal.
Gregg Kellogg: Perhaps discuss next time?

Topic: Next call

Next call June 26.
Benjamin Young: 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.
Pierre-Antoine Champin: 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.
Benjamin Young: There's also the federated identity WG which has conflicts.