Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[wg/rch] RDF Datasets Canonicalization and Hash WG recharter #478

Open
1 task done
pchampin opened this issue Aug 15, 2024 · 10 comments
Open
1 task done

[wg/rch] RDF Datasets Canonicalization and Hash WG recharter #478

pchampin opened this issue Aug 15, 2024 · 10 comments

Comments

@pchampin
Copy link

pchampin commented Aug 15, 2024

New charter proposal, reviewers please take note.

Charter Review

Charter

diff from charter template

chair CG dashboard

What kind of charter is this? Check the relevant box / remove irrelevant branches.

  • Existing WG recharter
  • If this is a charter extension or revision, any issue discussion:

The WG has published one REC-track deliverable (RDF-CANON) and one note (RCH-EXPLAINER). The goal of this new charter is to maintain those deliverables, noticing that RDF-CANON allows new features.

cc @philarcher @peacekeeper

@philarcher
Copy link

I'm happy with this. The only trigger for any change in the normative spec would be if someone found a security hole that needed to be plugged. In the absence of that, I don't expect the group to take any action. We're empowered to by this charter, but unless I'm mistaken, we shan't be doing so.

@ruoxiran
Copy link

no comment or request from APA.

@himorin
Copy link

himorin commented Aug 26, 2024

no comment or request from i18n

@simoneonofri
Copy link

From a Security perspective, this is a nice step for RDF security.

@philarcher I understand that, in any case, that was already a verification of the work, as in the explainer, correct?

@plehegar
Copy link
Member

plehegar commented Sep 5, 2024

PING is fine.

@simoneonofri
Copy link

@pchampin can you confirm we have there was already a verification? In this case, I can already put the label on it. Thank you!

@pchampin
Copy link
Author

pchampin commented Oct 7, 2024

To be clear: the report by Arnold and Longley, describing the algorithm URDNA2015, was reviewed by independent concultants.

The RDFC-1.0 algorithm described in the recommendation differs only very lightly from URDNA2015, in ways that do not change the experts' evaluation.

@svgeesus
Copy link
Contributor

Looks good in general. A few small points:

  1. This section

See also some publications for RDF Dataset Canonicalization that served as inputs for the specification work:

neither adds to or reduces the scope. Good stuff, but move it to Motivation and Background.

  1. Why was separate deleted, in

Each specification should contain separate sections detailing all known security and privacy implications for implementers, Web authors, and end users.

pchampin added a commit to w3c/rch-wg-charter that referenced this issue Oct 25, 2024
pchampin added a commit to w3c/rch-wg-charter that referenced this issue Oct 25, 2024
@pchampin
Copy link
Author

Looks good in general. A few small points: [...]

Both comments have been applied (1, 2). Thanks

@plehegar plehegar added the Data label Nov 12, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment