... For both 97 and 88 the conversation kind of snaked around a little bit
... the main lurking issue seems to be uncertainty for developers as they get exposed to JSON-LD
... Questions about how to construct contexts and where to host them
... Orie proposed a way forward: to ensure that editors of any CCG specs with JSON-LD are listed as contacts so when people have JSON-LD issues, there is a list to ask for help
... Without a focused working group, it's not clear how best to make progress, but listing contacts seems like a good start
Manu Sporny: +1 To the approach Orie is mentioning. ✪
Orie Steele: We don't have lots of time, so let's do something simple ✪
Kim Hamilton Duffy: The idea of designating some editors... this is something the chairs can take on to figure out where such information should go ✪
... the only issue is whether or not there are strong objections. If you are an editor and don't want to be contacted, let us know. However, the better option is better documentations
Jonahtan_holt: I would welcome external experts to review. There are schemas in from w3id.org inventing new things, or naming things that don't exist ✪
Kim Hamilton Duffy: That's a good idea. Can you provide some links? ✪
... Since these aren't formal work items (they are issues). We can just close these out with these resolutions.
... updating issue 97 now
... feel free to add comments
Kim Hamilton Duffy: Security vocab needs >1 codeowner ✪
... There were a few work items that got grandfathered in, but they are missing code owners
Manu Sporny: +1 To Orie (Transmute) or Tobias (Mattr) being the other code owners for all security-related things that don't have two owners already. ✪
... and only have one owner, which is not current process.