search

w3c / rch-wg-charter

Charter proposal for an “RDF Dataset Canonicalization and Hash Working Group”
https://w3c.github.io/rch-wg-charter/
Other
12 stars 7 forks source link

Alternative to #84 #85

Closed pchampin closed 3 years ago

pchampin commented 3 years ago

This takes most of @philarcher's text in #84, but moves it to the note cited by @iherman .

I find this more consistent, but I won't fight for it if people prefer #84 :)

msporny commented 3 years ago

I'm happy with this, sure. I'll ask Dan to look at it too (can't tag him here annoyingly)

I think this might do it -- /cc @danbri -- need a review from you on this.

danbri commented 3 years ago

Somewhat agnostic. I'm not sure why TriG is "notably"; or CBOR-LD gets mentioned before W3C's own Turtle, RDF/XML formats. Or engagement with the (is it RDF? is it Linked Data? is it in scope?) Microdata.

This is heading in a useful direction, but it still feels worth spelling out in excruciating detail why exactly a system can't be built which meets the needs of the underlying problem, but which keeps the source documents (or information about their hashes) somewhere bigger than a barcode.

The less you say now, the more you're playing "I feel lucky" with whoever decides that this is the WG for them...

pchampin commented 3 years ago

@danbri Turtle and RDF/XML are serializing graphs, not datasets. That's why they do not appear in the list.

As for the "constrained data transfer" use-case, honestly, I don't understand what you feel is missing...

danbri commented 3 years ago

Don't let me stand in your way with merging this. Maybe mention https://www.w3.org/TR/n-quads/ if you're only caring about datasets in this section? (I missed the section heading - reviewing PRs makes that easy)

iherman commented 3 years ago

@pchampin I did not know whether you want to make any more changes; I let you merge it when you feel like it...