search

w3c / strategy

team-strat, on GitHub, working in public. Current state: DRAFT
159 stars 46 forks source link

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

Open pchampin opened 2 months ago

pchampin commented 2 months ago

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.

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 commented 2 months ago

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 commented 2 months ago

no comment or request from APA.

himorin commented 2 months ago

no comment or request from i18n

simoneonofri commented 2 months ago

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 commented 1 month ago

PING is fine.

simoneonofri commented 1 month ago

@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 commented 3 weeks ago

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 commented 1 week ago

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 commented 1 week ago

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

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