Anatoly Scherbakov: Thanks! ✪

Gregg Kellogg: Announcements. Any impressions from TPAC? ✪

Pierre-Antoine Champin: Enjoyed it. Might start research about formally proving no lack of information among JSON-LD and RDF. ✪

Pierre-Antoine Champin: This might be a great addition to the spec and give people more confidence using JSON-LD. ✪

Pierre-Antoine Champin: A lot of great discussions. We improved our arguments and came up with ideas. ✪

Gregg Kellogg: This is probably about the 12th TPAC I attended. Breakouts were the most interesting, then focus time in groups and seeing people in person were special. ✪

Ivan Herman: I am a returning group member. On TPAC, there were discussions about schema.org which may be a major issue. ✪

Gregg Kellogg: High load on schema.org remains an issue despite recommendations to cache contexts. ✪

Gregg Kellogg: https://json-ld.github.io/json-ld-wg-charter/ ✪

Gregg Kellogg: I've merged my PR against the charter. The most important thing to do is going to be to finalize the charter. ✪

Gregg Kellogg: Benjamin asked if I'd co-chair with him and I said I would. ✪

Gregg Kellogg: There's a conflict between the roles of an editor and a chair and I'll be mindful of that. ✪

Gregg Kellogg: Pierre-Antoine, tentatively, will be the team contact. ✪

Gregg Kellogg: Scope now includes 1.2 versions of core JSON-LD specs, plus CBOR-LD and YAML-LD specs. ✪

Gregg Kellogg: Core JSON-LD work is going to be RDF-Star compatibility ✪

Pierre-Antoine Champin: RDF-star WG has two more years for which it is chartered. ✪

Pierre-Antoine Champin: There's one more year to finish the recommendation and the other for maintenance. Recommendation should be published in a year. ✪

Gregg Kellogg: JSON-LD 1.2 should be a recommendation within 3 monhts from RDF 1.2. ✪

Gregg Kellogg: (Barring unforeseen circumstances.) ✪

Gregg Kellogg: PR I merged updated the discussion of what's in scope. It is linking to the management page on GitHub but that might be insufficient. ✪

Gregg Kellogg: I enumerated most of open issues and PRs. ✪

Gregg Kellogg: All of those not necessarily are what we need to do. We need to go over them one by one and discuss. ✪

Gregg Kellogg: Maybe we do not want to take on some of those. Or there are not listed things we need to do. ✪

Gregg Kellogg: For instance, context loading and interaction with external websites. ✪

Ivan Herman: Latest version of the charter template published 2 weeks ago. It can be hard to compare that with the charter that's written already but it might be worth looking at. ✪

Ivan Herman: Can't judge all of the issues in scope. First three change classes can although be applied directly to the recommendation without a new version. ✪

Ivan Herman: We could do easy changes first, and republish the spec under current charter ASAP. ✪

Ivan Herman: So only the major changes will be left for the new version. ✪

Gregg Kellogg: There's a fair amount of work to tackle those issues. Say, 15 different PRs. That can take a long time. ✪

Ivan Herman: Rechartering takes time as well. ✪

Ivan Herman: That might take 3-4 months. ✪

Gregg Kellogg: We've been slow in doing updates. It would be difficult to get this done quickly. There's some momentum coming with a new charter though. ✪

Gregg Kellogg: Active 1.1 editors were Pierre-Antoine and I and we're fairly committed already. ✪

Ivan Herman: In the recharter scope, we might concentrate on the major changes, say adaptation to RDF 1.2, also solving JSON vs JSON-LD and contexts ✪

Ivan Herman: The relatively detailed things should probably be left out of the charter. ✪

Gregg Kellogg: Maybe create tags for Class 1-4 changes? and tag the issues. As a maintenance group we can handle 1-3 class changes. ✪

Ivan Herman: Is a maintenance group allowed to do class 4 changes? ✪

Gregg Kellogg: Not sure ✪

Pierre-Antoine Champin: We did not opt in for class 4 changes. ✪

Benjamin Young: Current charter https://www.w3.org/2023/01/json-ld-wg-charter.html ✪

Gregg Kellogg: Maybe more of these issues can be considered Errata, which are class 1 or 2. ✪

Ivan Herman: Not sure, but it is a good idea to label each issue. 1-3 should be omitted from the charter. ✪

Gregg Kellogg: We'd be optimistic to think we can do all these updates before that date ✪

Ivan Herman: I need to find my writeup for another WG on this subject ✪

Gregg Kellogg: That will be a challenge to get everything done by that deadline. Maybe we could consider an extension for current WG for 6 months. ✪

Gregg Kellogg: And thereafter we might be a in a better place to set up the new charter. ✪

Ivan Herman: -> Publication steps in a maintenance wg https://github.com/w3c/pm-wg/wiki/Publication-steps ✪

Pierre-Antoine Champin: Are 1-3 changes prerequisite for recharter or we can start not waiting for the new charter? ✪

Ivan Herman: No need to wait ✪

Ivan Herman: No way by the end of January the new charter will be accepted, therefore extension is unavoidable. ✪

Ivan Herman: As soon as we announce we're working on a new charter - extension becomes almost automatic ✪

Ivan Herman: In theory, we should have already made such an announcement ✪

Gregg Kellogg: We need to keep the charter template up to date, and to tag the issues and work on them. ✪

Pierre-Antoine Champin: FTR I did an "upgrade to latest template" 2 months ago, so we should not be too far from the latest latest one ✪

Gregg Kellogg: We will focus on WG meetings and identify one or two some of those issues to focus on ✪

Gregg Kellogg: Then we'll do an Updated Recommendation. ✪

Gregg Kellogg: Any other deliverables regarding the charter? ✪

Gregg Kellogg: Linking test cases to normative discussions in 1.1 was quite a lot of work ✪

Gregg Kellogg: Implementations are targeted at the test suite ✪

Gregg Kellogg: Now we have tests overlapping each other and we are not sure which of them touches which features ✪

Gregg Kellogg: There's respec markup to reference tests and Ivan wrote a tool correlating that with test manifest so that test refer to the spec ✪

Gregg Kellogg: Test ca point to the spec in the test manifest ✪

Ivan Herman: Let me find an example where this worked ✪

Ivan Herman: https://w3c.github.io/epub-specs/epub33/core/#sec-core-media-types ✪

Ivan Herman: This is a reference to an Editor's Draft of a spec, where <detail> element refers to the test ✪

Ivan Herman: This is partially ReSpec ✪

Ivan Herman: <Detail> is generated by ReSpec but ReSpec is bound to Web Testing framework ✪

Ivan Herman: This is not useful for JSON-LD though ✪

Ivan Herman: I had to do some additional scripting in ReSpec to get it working without Web Testing framework ✪

Gregg Kellogg: I think YAML-LD spec references tests ✪

Ivan Herman: This is a very handy thing to prove that we test each statement in the document ✪

Gregg Kellogg: https://json-ld.github.io/yaml-ld/spec/#anchors-aliases ✪

Gregg Kellogg: The link above shows that there are 3 tests for this section and references the HTML test manifest ✪

Gregg Kellogg: Similarly, test manifest has a References section refers back to the spec ✪

Gregg Kellogg: It is a variation of your mechanism, Ivan ✪

Gregg Kellogg: Worth spending time to do this for JSON-LD as well. We will sure do this for CBOR as well ✪

Gregg Kellogg: Not sure each test has to be referenced but normative statements should have tests associated with them. And we'll find test gaps. ✪

Ivan Herman: Luckily we started this setup in the beginning. we created a test for each MUST, this made it easier ✪

Gregg Kellogg: Interpreting a section and looking for tests covering it might be tedious ✪

Gregg Kellogg: Once a few are done then others are easier. duplicate tests also probably exist ✪

Gregg Kellogg: Not sure what we can do today ✪

Gregg Kellogg: Pierre-Antoine had you had a script to automatically label issues? ✪

Pierre-Antoine Champin: Not sure, my script duplicated available labels from one repo to another ✪

Pierre-Antoine Champin: To unify labels among repos of RDF-Star WG ✪

Pierre-Antoine Champin: Will look at it ✪

Pierre-Antoine Champin: A formal proof of equivalence among JSON-LD and RDF despite difference in formats would improve certainty in the format. ✪

Pierre-Antoine Champin: We believe this is the case but theoretical proof is not there yet. ✪

Pierre-Antoine Champin: This research will help identify caveats when designing contexts. ✪

Gregg Kellogg: Next meeting will be a WG meeting and we'll be looking at specific issues. ✪

Ivan Herman: What's the difference among CG and WG meetings? ✪

Gregg Kellogg: WG can decide on things effecting specs and CG can only talk about these ✪

Ivan Herman: How to distinguish between the two? ✪

Gregg Kellogg: The title says that ✪

Ivan Herman: I signed up for the WG ✪

Gregg Kellogg: We'll probably operate under the WG for the future ✪

Gregg Kellogg: We're adjourned until next time ✪