json-ld/charter

Charter for JSON-LD WG

charter's Issues

Inconsistency in numbering

The draft documents refer to JSON-LD 1.1. However, the charter text says:

The group will maintain and advance the Test Suite allowing for continued testing of JSON-LD 1.0 implementations in addition to JSON-LD processors operating both in legacy and 2.0 modes.

And the items in 2.1 also refer to 2.0.

I personally prefer 1.1, because the changes are not really fundamental, but that is a judgement call. But the CG draft and the charter should be consistent.

relationship to verifiable claims

The current text says:

Coordination on named graph indexing and support for RDF Dataset Normalization and Linked Data Signatures.

That may be a bit misleading: it suggests that this group will take on Normalization and Signatures, which is not the case (should we add this to the "out of scope" section, b.t.w.?). I think the exact nature of the relationship should be a bit more "vague"...

External organizations?

The section on external organizations is currently empty. If we do not have any such organizations to liaise with, I propose to replace the list in the section by "None."

Backward compatibility in the charter

I believe the charter should make a stronger statement somewhere on the backward compatibility of JSON-LD 1.1 vs. JSON-LD 1.0. Maybe at the end of section 1 (right before 1.1) we could add something like:

The specifications developed by this Working Group MUST be strictly backward compatible with the ones published in 2014. Ie, any valid JSON-LD 1.0 document MUST be valid JSON-LD 1.1. Furthermore, a JSON-LD 1.1 processor MUST produce the exact same linked data representation as its JSON-LD 1.0 processor counterpart.

I am not 100% sure how to say that the results are equivalent. If we use RDF then the situation is clearer: the RDF graphs must be equivalent in the RDF Semantics sense. But, though mathematically precise, I am not sure it is the right terminology for the charter...

Mailing list and github reference in the charter

The text says (in section 5)

public mailing list [email protected] (archive) ...

The CG mailing list should not be reused for the Working Group. The CG may have a different job (outreach, etc) during the work of the WG. Also, from a technical point of view, the CG mailing list is bound to the database entry for the CG, whereas the WG will be bound to a separate database entry for the WG. Finally, the IPR issues also require a strict separation.

The same section also refers to github repo. We should have separate repositories, so let us not cast the references in concrete for now.

The scope section is probably too verbose

I wonder how to make the scope section much more succinct. I am not sure that the detailed bulleted list for the changes should be part of the charter. Let alone the fact that it sounds as if those entries, and their proposed solutions (referred to via the PR-s) are already cast in concrete and the charter takes a commitment. Formally, it will be up to the WG to make those decisions.

Is there a text/blog/presentation (like, e.g., the TPAC presentation) that could be referred to instead, showing the type of solution adopted at this moment by the CG? That could be referred from the charter but not turning these into a WG commitments?

Cc: @wseltzer

Reference to the DWPB WG document

The document includes, in the scope section

The scope of work is limited by the principle of consistency with the objectives for describing data on the World Wide Web as expressed in Data on the Web Best Practices.

I do not really understand what this means. The DWPB doesn't explicitly define a "principle of consistency" to refer to; referring to such a document as a general statement does not really mean anything. I propose to remove the sentence. (The next sentence should also be slightly rephrased then.)

Review of Philippe le Hégaret, on behalf of W3M

(Copying, with permission, PlH's mail.)

Hi Ivan,

I only have minor comments.

I presume your 10% comes from the POE leftover.

Section 3.2 can be removed.

Use Process 2018 and Patent Policy 2017 for the links (see https://w3c.github.io/charter-drafts/charter-template.html )

Philippe