Issue marker for json datatype

[domel]

---

Preview | Diff

[pfps]

This PR needs discussion by the WG.

[gkellogg]

Perhaps change the text on rdf:JSON to an issue marker.

[pfps]

I don't think there is even a WG issue to point to for rdf:JSON.

[TallTed]

I am generally in favor of normatively specifying rdf:JSON (as well as rdf:HTML, rdf:YAML, and likely others). I think that addressing these should start with an issue, rather than a PR, even though discussing the language may be better handled in a PR (even this one) than an issue.

[gkellogg]

Issue #7 is what relates to this, and is what should be referenced. If there was good support for referencing wg-general issues in ReSpec that would be better, but we're left with per-repository issues. In RDF Concepts it's w3c/rdf-concepts#14.

[TallTed]

There is no Issue #9 in this repo; it's PR #9, which is where I'm writing this comment. Please provide a complete link to the Issue #9 to which you refer.

I think it's legitimate to create an issue in one repo and reference it from issues on other repos, each of which then get addressed by a PR in the associated repo. This provides a clear back-and-forth reference chain from local-repo-PR to local-repo-Issue to remote-repo-Issue.

[gkellogg]

There is no Issue #9 in this repo; it's PR #9, which is where I'm writing this comment. Please provide a complete link to the Issue #9 to which you refer.

Okay, a typo. Look at the list of (at this point) three open issue, it seems that it is issue #7. (GitHub suggestions when you start with '#' aren't always helpful).

[afs]

should start with an issue

yes.

There has been no WG decision. Publishing in FPWD must reflect the WG.

[TallTed]

[@afs] Publishing in FPWD must reflect the WG.

This is not accurate. FPWD is a heartbeat action, as are all the Editors' Drafts that get published between FPWD and CR. FPWD does require group consensus to publish, but there are no requirements about its content, which has even less weight than the content of a WG NOTE, which has almost no weight. An FPWD could be pure boilerplate, or a collection of sections that entirely disagree with each other, or a bunch of Guttenberg Project or Lorem Ipsum text.

[gkellogg]

Change is no just an issue marker to #7, with other text commented out for now.

[pfps]

I would prefer something that better indicates that there is an issue about whether to add the rdf:JSON datatype, not that there is an issue to add it, which reads as if the addition is a done deal and what remains is figuring out the details.

[gkellogg]

This is substantially the same text as has been in the RDF Concepts PR w3c/rdf-concepts#18 since February. It is a pointer to the issue which has already been approved by the WG. The issue proposes to add the rdf:JSON datatype, which is in fact the issue to be determined. This is just a pointer that issue. I think we've discussed the "issue" of adding issue markers enough.

[pfps]

If this is to be just adding an issue marker, the title of the PR should be modified.