19:02:57 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rch
19:03:01 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/05/03-rch-irc
19:03:09 <phila> meeting: RCH weekly
19:03:10 <gkellogg> zakim, start meeting
19:03:10 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
19:03:11 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), gkellogg
19:03:24 <phila> agenda: https://beta.w3.org/events/meetings/891de7fc-3d17-4f2b-a4d5-c70c181a75ff/20230503T150000/
19:03:25 <agendabot> clear agenda
19:03:25 <agendabot> agenda+ Scribe (most recent first) markus_sabadello, PhilA, seabass, DLongley, Manu, Gregg, pchampin, Ahmad, AndyS
19:03:25 <agendabot> agenda+ All minutes online available via  -> https://www.w3.org/services/meeting-minutes?channel=rch&num=200 https://www.w3.org/services/meeting-minutes?channel=rch&num=200
19:03:26 <agendabot> agenda+ Round the room - any news to share? IIW?
19:03:27 <agendabot> agenda+ PR to address issues about algorithm output and serialization:  -> Issue 4 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-canon/issues/4 ,  -> Issue 89 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-canon/issues/89 ,  -> Issue 92 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-canon/issues/92
19:03:31 <agendabot> agenda+ Issue bashing, starting with the ones already  -> proposed to be closed https://github.com/w3c/rdf-canon/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3A%22propose+closing%22 .
19:03:35 <agendabot> agenda+  -> Least recently updated issues https://github.com/w3c/rdf-canon/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+sort%3Aupdated-asc
19:03:43 <gkellogg> present+
19:03:49 <phila> present+
19:03:53 <phila> chair: markus_sabadello
19:04:08 <dlongley> present+
19:04:09 <seabass> present+
19:04:13 <seabass> scribe+
19:04:22 <phila> scribe: seabass
19:06:29 <gkellogg> zakim, next agendum
19:06:29 <Zakim> agendum 1 -- Scribe (most recent first) markus_sabadello, PhilA, seabass, DLongley, Manu, Gregg, pchampin, Ahmad, AndyS -- taken up [from agendabot]
19:06:33 <ivan> ivan has joined #rch
19:06:38 <gkellogg> zakim, close agendum 1
19:06:38 <Zakim> agendum 1, Scribe (most recent first) markus_sabadello, PhilA, seabass, DLongley, Manu, Gregg, pchampin, Ahmad, AndyS, closed
19:06:40 <Zakim> I see 5 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
19:06:40 <Zakim> 2. All minutes online available via  -> https://www.w3.org/services/meeting-minutes?channel=rch&num=200 https://www.w3.org/services/meeting-minutes?channel=rch&num=200 [from
19:06:40 <Zakim> ... agendabot]
19:06:52 <gkellogg> zakim, close agendum 2
19:06:52 <Zakim> agendum 2, All minutes online available via  -> https://www.w3.org/services/meeting-minutes?channel=rch&num=200 https://www.w3.org/services/meeting-minutes?channel=rch&num=200,
19:06:55 <Zakim> ... closed
19:06:55 <Zakim> I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
19:06:55 <Zakim> 3. Round the room - any news to share? IIW? [from agendabot]
19:07:11 <seabass> q+ to mention PR for issue 4
19:08:56 <seabass> phila: Given the results from the meeting time poll, I would suggest making it 3PM UK time alternating between Wednesdays and Tuesdays each week
19:09:44 <seabass> gkellogg: RDF* is doing first public working draft tomorrow
19:11:14 <seabass> gkellogg: the timing is still off, so we should still target 2.1 for now. Quoted triples we don't have a solution for; we could use what the RDF* WG produce, but they aren't close to that yet.
19:11:16 <gkellogg> s/RDF*/RDF-star/
19:12:41 <seabass> seabass: have to apologise for the delay in the PR for issue #4; still intend to do it this week
19:12:47 <markus_sabadello> zakim, close agendum 3
19:12:47 <Zakim> agendum 3, Round the room - any news to share? IIW?, closed
19:12:48 <Zakim> I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
19:12:48 <Zakim> 4. PR to address issues about algorithm output and serialization:  -> Issue 4 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-canon/issues/4 ,  -> Issue 89 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-canon/issues/89 ,
19:12:48 <Zakim> ... -> Issue 92 https://github.com/w3c/rdf-canon/issues/92 [from agendabot]
19:13:56 <gkellogg> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-canon/pull/97
19:15:16 <seabass> gkellogg: te PR has fairly small changes. It changes the definition of normalized dataset.
19:16:22 <seabass> markus_sabadello: does this close issue 4?
19:16:48 <dlongley> q+
19:16:50 <seabass> gkellogg: I think there was some confusion about the ordering of N-Quads; this is currently required in the specification
19:17:00 <markus_sabadello> ack seabass
19:17:00 <Zakim> seabass, you wanted to mention PR for issue 4
19:17:10 <markus_sabadello> seabass: I thought it looks like an improvement, but doesn't fully close issue 4
19:17:18 <phila> seabass: That looks like an improvement, but it doesn't close Issue 4 IMO
19:17:31 <markus_sabadello> seabass: IIRC, ivan didn't think it was appropriate for the sorting to be abstract, but rather a concrete step in serialization
19:17:42 <phila> ... Ivan didn't seem to think it was appropriate to order the abstract dataset
19:18:54 <phila> q+ to agree that ordering an abstract is iffy, ordering a serialization makes sense
19:19:33 <markus_sabadello> gkellogg: By the time you get to step 7, all the blank nodes in the data set will have been assigned a canonical identifier, this assignment is recorded in the ordered map
19:20:01 <markus_sabadello> gkellogg: If you just  look at serialization, it says that when creating the canonical form of a quad, you must use the canonical label from the map
19:20:24 <markus_sabadello> gkellogg: The assignment of the canonical labels is done prior to this step
19:20:37 <markus_sabadello> gkellogg: This provides the opportunity to provide alternative labeling
19:20:59 <markus_sabadello> ack dlongley
19:21:24 <seabass> dlongley: The ordering might matter in the context of issue #9, which is my only apprehension about merging this now
19:21:36 <markus_sabadello> s/#9/#89/
19:21:43 <phila> q-
19:22:27 <seabass> dlongley: What you need to know at that stage is how to map the labels to canonical labels
19:22:38 <dlongley> q?
19:22:54 <seabass> gkellogg: Are we satisfied that the PR satisfies #4?
19:22:58 <dlongley> q+
19:23:12 <markus_sabadello> ack dlongley
19:24:10 <gkellogg> q+ to say that the fact the map is ordered may not be important
19:24:13 <markus_sabadello> seabass: It looks like this satisfy issue 4, but adds extra layers of non normative abstraction, namely moving/sorting to an earlier stage
19:24:22 <markus_sabadello> ack gkellogg
19:24:22 <Zakim> gkellogg, you wanted to say that the fact the map is ordered may not be important
19:25:13 <seabass> gkellogg: I don't think it's necessary to have ordering this early, but once you get to step 7, other use-cases might benefit from having an already-normalised, ordered dataset.
19:26:41 <markus_sabadello> q+
19:26:44 <markus_sabadello> ack markus_sabadello
19:28:19 <gkellogg> q+
19:28:21 <seabass> markus_sabadello: the primary reason for blank node label normalisation is to support selective disclosure.
19:28:32 <markus_sabadello> ack gkellogg
19:30:47 <dlongley> q+ to propose we merge PR 97 and move onto 89
19:31:35 <markus_sabadello> gkellogg: Selective disclosure is not something we define, but something we should enable
19:31:43 <markus_sabadello> ack dlongley
19:31:43 <Zakim> dlongley, you wanted to propose we merge PR 97 and move onto 89
19:32:08 <phila> q+
19:32:28 <gkellogg> +1 to closing out #97 and close #4
19:32:30 <seabass> dlongley: What we're doing in this WG is defining the primitives. I would propose merging #97 and closing #4.
19:32:50 <gkellogg> s/closing out/merging/
19:32:53 <markus_sabadello> ack phila
19:33:41 <seabass> phila: Selective Disclosure is a wider term than applies only to RCH
19:34:21 <gkellogg> q+
19:34:33 <phila> s/Selective Disclosure is a wider term than applies only to RCH/RCH is broader than the VC use cases which is where selective disclosure issue comes from
19:34:47 <dlongley> is fine with leaving it open for now
19:34:52 <gkellogg> q-
19:35:09 <dlongley> +1 to leave open and merge soonish -- and move onto the other issues
19:36:44 <dlongley> +1 to trying to keep issues simpler and closed sooner
19:37:46 <markus_sabadello> seabass: Also prefer smaller issues, except maybe in cases like this where the purpose of the specification is being discussed
19:38:49 <markus_sabadello> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-canon/issues/92
19:39:30 <seabass> markus_sabadello: Let's leave #4 open for a few days; and consider closing #92 at the same time as #4
19:39:49 <dlongley> +1 to markus
19:40:57 <seabass> +1 to phila's resolution
19:42:41 <dlongley> q+
19:43:51 <markus_sabadello> seabass: Whose commit comes first doesn't seem important. The process shouldn't bog people down.
19:44:01 <markus_sabadello> ack dlongley
19:44:53 <markus_sabadello> seabass: I was suggesting the PR could be merged in 2-3 days, because it doesn't mean anything for the group's consensus.
19:45:02 <phila> q+
19:45:12 <gkellogg> q+
19:45:14 <markus_sabadello> ack phila
19:45:50 <markus_sabadello> phila: Does it make a difference for gkellogg if the PR is merged at the end of the week, or by next meeting?
19:46:16 <seabass> gkellogg: there is always the risk of rebases, which can be lossy if one isn't careful
19:47:01 <seabass> gkellogg: RDF-star WG has PRs open for 1 week or 2 weeks for substantive changes. We can operate more quickly, because we don't have as many responsibilities here
19:50:00 <markus_sabadello> seabass: The algorithm seems to add the concept of an ordered map
19:50:20 <markus_sabadello> seabass: If you solved issue 4, but also added something else that someone may not agree with, would you be upset if the PR gets reverted
19:52:52 <seabass> markus_sabadello: I think we can always change text more than once
19:53:31 <markus_sabadello> PROPOSAL: Today, mark issues 4 and 92 as pending-close. Merge PR 97 on friday, and close issues 4 and 92. Leave issue 89 open. Create new issue about adding a diagram about the algorithm.
19:53:34 <seabass> +1
19:53:35 <dlongley> +1
19:53:38 <markus_sabadello> +1
19:53:38 <phila> +1
19:53:38 <gkellogg> +1
19:53:44 <dlehn> +1
19:53:58 <markus_sabadello> RESOLUTION: Today, mark issues 4 and 92 as pending-close. Merge PR 97 on friday, and close issues 4 and 92. Leave issue 89 open. Create new issue about adding a diagram about the algorithm.
19:54:30 <seabass> gkellogg is a much more magnanimous author than those I have had to deal with in other WGs :)
19:55:29 <markus_sabadello> https://github.com/w3c/rdf-canon/issues/92
19:56:27 <dlongley> q+ to say 89 needs some kind of resolution and may soon cause trouble for VCWG if we don't address it
19:56:50 <markus_sabadello> ack dlongley
19:56:50 <Zakim> dlongley, you wanted to say 89 needs some kind of resolution and may soon cause trouble for VCWG if we don't address it
19:57:53 <dlongley> q+ to quickly ask when the meeting is on 89
19:59:28 <markus_sabadello> phila: Meetings will now always be at 10am ET, alternating between Wednesdays and Tuesdays
20:00:17 <phila> zakim, end meeting
20:00:17 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been gkellogg, phila, dlongley, seabass
20:00:19 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
20:00:20 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/05/03-rch-minutes.html Zakim
20:00:27 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, phila; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
20:00:27 <Zakim> Zakim has left #rch
20:10:33 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rch
20:18:12 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rch
20:23:53 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rch
20:25:59 <gkellogg_> gkellogg_ has joined #rch
20:46:20 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rch
20:56:19 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rch
22:54:19 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rch
23:10:51 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rch
23:34:43 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rch
23:35:46 <gkellogg_> gkellogg_ has joined #rch
23:45:09 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rch
23:52:45 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rch
23:59:09 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rch