Meeting minutes
phila: We will scribe every meeting.
phila: I'm Phil Archer of GS1, org behind barcodes.
phila: Been with GS1 for 5 years, before that at W3C working on Semantic Web
phila: I'm here as someone with backgroun in Linked Data, vocabularies, ontologies, etc.
markus_sabadello: Introduces self. From Danube Tech, working on decentralized ID technologies
… member of the DID WG and the VCWG
… always had a strong interest in digital identities tech, JDON-LD, and the proofs that we need.
Pierre-Antoine: I'm PA, associate professor of computer science in Lyon, been participating in RDF-related working groups
Pierre-Antoine: Took a sabbatical 18 months ago, joined W3C team as fellow.
Pierre-Antoine: I'm team contact of a number of groups including this one.
Pierre-Antoine: I will also be contact in upcoming RDF-Star WG and DID WG
ivan: In "ancient times" I was in the Semantic Web activity in W3C, then handed over to phila
ivan: Now moved on to digital publishing, staff contact of epub WG
ivan: Also staff contact of DID WG, and before involved in JSON-LD WG
ivan: Now I do VC WG
ivan: I have actually retired a year ago, in the Netherlands. I work 50% of my time.
ivan: I was also part of a group people who got this WG up and running
ivan: I am NOT staff contact in this group, just interested
Dan Yamamoto: I appreciate the invitation, I work for Internet Initiative Japan, not currently a W3C member. I'm an Invited Expert.
Dan Yamamoto: I work on a project for ZKP for Linked Data, includes RDF hashing for specialized BBS+ signature schemes
Dan Yamamoto: Project members were invited by chairs to this WG
Dan Yamamoto: We have a live demo ZKP-LD playground
Dan Yamamoto: I look forward to working with you, this is my first time in W3C
leonardr: In this context, I am chair of technical WG of the Coalition for Content Provenance, focuses ensuring provenance and trust for assets
leonardr: Been working with DID and VC groups and utilizing those technologies
leonardr: Also project editor+chair for the Working Group 11, in an RDF based technology
gkellogg: Most recently I spent most of my time on JSON-LD, now we have a community group working on YAML-LD
gkellogg: Been involved with most RDF work for 12-13 years
gkellogg: I've had my hands in almost ever RDF serialization format
Tobias: I'm assistant professor at university in Amsterdam, on a part-time basis. I've been working on things related to this WG, for the past 10 years, canonicalization and hashing.
Tobias: I've applied canonicalization and hashing in an isolated way, there hasn't been a coordinated effort
<pchampin> https://
Tobias: I have some university obligations, but now will also be founder of a startup, to create impact
aalobaid: I'm a researcher at the Ontology Engineering Group in Madrid, I work mainly on RDF graph construction and semantic labeling. This is my work time participating in a charter
AndyS: I'm Andy Seaborne. In this group, I'm affiliated with Apache Software Foundation, on the Jena RDF toolkit. Also work for a startup that uses RDF and has interest in provenance and integrity of data, and sharing between organizations.
AndyS: I have both work and personal interest in this work.
dlongley: I'm Dave Longley with Digital Bazaar, been working on standards for over a decade. Some of the standards are JSON-LD, VCs, also some work on input documents of this group.
manu: Wonderful to see so many face we've known for a very long time. This is a great day, this has been 10 years in the making. I've worked with many of you including RDFa, JSON-LD, VCs, DIDs. Currently I'm editor for Data Integrity specification, which hopes to use the output of this group.
manu: Looking forward to working with all of you.
dlehn1: Also with Digital Bazaar, been working on JSON-LD, usually work on implementation details.
<TallTed> https://
TallTed: I'm with OpenLink Software, involved in W3C groups related to Linked Data, etc. If you pull a PR, you will find me make it more readable. I don't code, but I have a strong understanding how things are supposed to fit together. Try to liaison with Credibility Community Group.
https://
markus_sabadello: Shares screen to show charter
markus_sabadello: ... walks through the sections
… RDF C18N & Hashing is about RDF. VCs have been mentioned, there is a link of course
… VCs can inclde proofs and signatures. For that you need c18n and hash
… we've heard lots of interest in te intros. VCs are one use case, but not the only one.
… Linked Data Spaces will also have interest I think, outside VCs
… c18n ... means creating one default/preferred represetnation of something that can have several.
… we're not canonicalizing a JSON-LD doc, but the abstract data model behind it
… hashing - everyone knows what that means. Can have a large number of applications. Not just signing
… hashlinks construct links that contain a hash of hte expected data
… charter mentions a number of publications as inpur docs
leonardr: I completely understand the desire to c14n the general expression rather than a specific serialization. Does that imply that the algos for c18n specific serializations are in or out of scope?
markus_sabadello: We're workng at the abstract data model level, not the JSOn-LD
leonardr: Good. It might be relevant to add to the out of scope section that translations of a specific serialization to the abstract
markus_sabadello: Yes, I don't think that's in our scope
pchampin: We can make some changes to the charter. I think liaison is one we can change. Scope inclusing out of scope, cannot be changed
markus_sabadello: Talking of what is out of scope - the definition of new crypto algorithms
… so it's about how to use them in RDF Dataset
markus_sabadello: Higher level signature schemes are not in scope. SCope shoudl be relatively narrow
dlongley: In response to leonardr - in order to create any test factors, we're going to have to define some kind of work
… or it won't work.
leonardr: We should talk about that when we et into testing. Slippery slope
markus_sabadello: To create test suites, they can use certain tech that is not in scope in order to be able to implement it
markus_sabadello: That doesn't make it is scope. That's not what's being tested
<dlongley> this group should not be defining new RDF serializations (only reusing them as needed)
<manu> +1
<AndyS> Existing RDF formats define a mapping to the RDF abstract data model as part of their specs.
<Zakim> gkellogg, you wanted to ask about relationship with dataset isomorphism and relationship to RDF-star
<manu> we also may need to talk about how input/output serializations / specs are affected by our work here.
<leonardr> @manu/@dlongley - though I worry about use perhaps showing "preference" to serializations and/or implementations of them...
gkellogg: It seems there is a close relationship between isomorphism and the canonicalisation. Might there be somethingn to say about that?
<manu> True, always a concern, leonardr
gkellogg: ANd the netx thing to think about - if we have quads - we are going to take into cnsideration of RDF-star
… we'll need to discuss that. It needs to be in scope
ivan: The isoprphism issue came up in the charter discussion. There's clearly a close relationship between the two. If wo are canonical then they have the smae morphology
<manu> Yes, we absolutely have to deal w/ graph isomorphism in the work we do in this group... it's unavoidable if the goal is to create a generalized solution to RDF Dataset Canonicalization.
ivan: We can keep in our minds... but it's not part of any recommendation. We can publsh whatever notes we want to do.
ivan: It's certainly a topic.
ivan: The topic of RDF* came up late in the discussion. I'm not an expert in it, but I thought that builds on the RDF model. An RDF* graph can be mapped onto an RDF graph
ivan: If this is true, then c18n works. But we can't work on it normatively as it's not in the charter
ivan: But we have a liaison and the same staff contact
markus_sabadello: We should definitiely track RDF* and maybe a Note
pchampin: As the staff contact of both groups, I will ensure that communication occurs between this and RDF*. Groups didn't exist when we were writing the charter
AndyS: I think P-A has covered most of it. I'm sure we can do isomorphism, even if not c18n
markus_sabadello: Reviews the the normative deliverables
markus_sabadello: The hash Rec will specify how to apply a hash function to an RDF dataset, and one of the steps will be the c18N step
markus_sabadello: So one spec uses the other
markus_sabadello: I think there will be some interesting variation. We've heard already about zero knowledge proofs
markus_sabadello: We might talk about VCs and our relationship if we have time
markus_sabadello: We should mention - in some CGs there has already been a lot of work on c18n. VCs are already canonicalizing and hashing so this group won't start from scratch
… specifically there's a draft from Dave and Manu (and Rachel I believe)
… we want to recognise this existing work
… Doesn't mean that we have to use it, but we should recognise such documents
Explainer document: https://
<gkellogg> The CG also has a testsuite: https://
<Zakim> AndyS, you wanted to ask about non-normative tests
markus_sabadello: I think that's it for the scope and deliverables. We can cover the time line at a future meeting
<manu> +1, we do not want (nor expect) a rubber stamp on the input documents -- we are all seeking a thorough multi-disciplinary expert review and actively analyzed attack models against the algorithms presented. :)
markus_sabadello: we don't have to run for the full 24 months :-)
markus_sabadello: Please review the charter and we'll talk about that again next time.
phila: W3C meeting are expected to finish 5 min early, this is good practice
phila: Will talk about TPAC now
phila: Does anybody know already that they want to be an editor? Requires work, but you will be remembered :)
phila: We will obviously need editors to drive delivery of the documents.
phila: TPAC is in 2 weeks, we are meeting for 2 hours together with VC WG.
<manu> +1 to meet every other week (alternating w/ the VCWG)
phila: Our planned call schedule is to meet every 2 weeks at this current time, which is aligned with VC WG also meeting at that time at the alternate time slot
phila: Dan, what time is it for you, how is this time slot?
Dan Yamamoto: It's midnight, but I can accept that
phila: Anybody else in a difficult time zone?
gkellogg: It's morning for me
phila: At the moment we think every 2 weeks is enough, but this may change. We may also have task forces that meet separately, but we will start with this schedule
phila: We have the 2 hour meeting at TPAC with VC WG. I will be at TPAC in Vancouver
ivan: I will be there
<leonardr> I will not be at TPAC - have a conflicting standards meeting in Berlin
Pierre-Antoine: I will be there as well
<AndyS> I hope to attend remotely.
phila: We will try very hard to make sure that the people who join remotely will not be in any way at a disadvantage
phila: We will have Dave present his work, and Aidan Hogan will present his.
phila: We will have presentations of 2 input documents, I hope to find out the differences between the approaches.
phila: Does someone else in the room have a 3rd or 4th approach?
<yamdan> I will join remotely
phila: Any other questions?
leonardr: I assume the minutes and copies of presentations will be made available
phila: Yes, will be made available to the group
ivan: Presentation of Dave and Aidan will happen at the TPAC meeting? This might be tough on the VC people.
ivan: This work may be difficult to follow.
phila: The meeting will also be about the relationship of the two groups.
phila: This group is not just a "special task force" of the VC Working Group.
phila: Thank you everybody, I look forward to the work. See some of you in Vancouv
<AndyS> Thank you!