Meeting minutes
<seabass1> What do I come up as on IRC? seabass1?
<seabass1> I'll scribe
Obligatory https://
<Zakim> manu, you wanted to note item on agenda and to
manu: There was an interesting email to the JSON-LD WG to the WoT group in W3C; they have requested a meeting at TPAC.
manu: They're suggesting meeting on Monday, or another time which conflicts with the VCWG meeting
phila: Unless something goes wrong, we'll only have one agenda item: discussion of going to CR.
<manu> +1 to meet w/ WoT during RCH WG.
phila: Let's combine with the WoT meeting then.
<manu> Demonstration of Support for NIST-Compliant Selective Disclosure for Data Integrity Cryptosuites in VCWG: https://
manu: We've been gathering signatures for an open letter of support for NIST-compliant cryptosuites for Verifiable Credentials/Presentations
<manu> PRs to make the above concrete: https://
manu: As a result of this, two pull requests have been opened on the EDDSA test suite related to RDF Dataset Canonicalisation.
manu: The other selective disclosure method is based on a mechanism called BBS.
seabass: Is the letter a formal procedure?
manu: No, it's an informal one. Some of the signatures include GS1 (thank you to Phil) and most recently GSMA.
manu: The formal part is the PR review - if there are objections to the pull requests, then it might still be rejected.
manu: It is marked as 'at-risk', so there is no guarantee that it will survive the CR phase.
Open Issues
<phila> https://
phila: If we don't get a response from the requested horizontal reviews, we can continue to go to CR without delay.
phila: Manu, are you still able to write the history section given your workload?
manu: Yes, eventually I will write it but unlikely in the next few weeks.
<gkellogg> w3c/
w3c/rdf-canon#98
seabass: I've not used respec in this depth before.
… the JS code is such that the image will be inserted several time -- can we improve that?
gkellogg: all SVGs are commited by hand, there is no automated pipeline that spits them out
… you mentioned the list of contributors; this one uses a script that requires an API key
… it has not been included in a pipeline
… we do have actions that run on any commit/PR (e.g. updating the tests)
<Zakim> manu, you wanted to note that images checked in multiple times is ok -- also respec-mermaid exists, SVGs are text, etc.
gkellogg: this could lead to extra commits
manu: recommends against plantuml, it generates ugly diagrams compared to what Dan has produced
… different WGs work differently
… let's just check-in the image file, it won't change that much anyway
… the other thing we could do: use the respec plugin for mermaid to generate the diagram (but again, will not look as good)
… SVG is text; we can fine-tune them by hand
… I suggest seabass to not spend time on this
<manu> +1 to do this in SVG format, easier to do accessible descriptions for that.
seabass: ok; I can suggest svgo which is an XML-formatter fine-tuned for SVG
<manu> oh! totally agree w/ gkellog.
<manu> I didn't know that's what we were discussing.
<manu> (we shouldn't reproduce this diagram for every example)
gkellogg: this diagram will only occur onces; from it you can interpret other examples
<gkellogg> #114
w3c/rdf-canon#114
gkellogg: I wasn't able to find a coherent list of contributors from the CCG to acknowledge.
<Zakim> manu, you wanted to note how we usually do this.
manu: I have a script that will pick out the names automatically. I can share it if my workload permits.
seabass: We could ask the entire current CCG if any members were involved in the past.
TallTed: The W3C will have records of who was involved because of IPR.
phila: That would include many more people than who were involved directly in our project.
Review Test Suite https://w3c.github.io/rdf-canon/tests/
phila: I believe we have finished our review of the currently opened issues, and we have no issue to discuss here.
phila: Is the test suite complete and is it still correct?
gkellogg: Test suites are never truly complete, and we might still see requests for new tests to be added even after the end of our WG. However, the test suite has everything we wanted in it and there are two independent implementations.
<gkellogg> https://
<pchampin> indeed, I did run the last test suite with my latest code, and got 100% passed
<pchampin> I'll submit my new test report as soon as I make a new release of Sophia
<yamdan> I'll submit a report of my implementation later
phila: Implementations written by those outside of this WG are worth ten times what an internal implementation is worth.
Implementation Reports
<dlongley> the people who wrote these may update them: https://
seabass: Has SpruceID committed to writing an implementation?
manu: Charles Lehner of SpruceID has already written one.
phila: yamdan, do you have an implementation?
yamdan: Yes, and I will submit my test report later.
<Zakim> manu, you wanted to ask yamdan about impl language
manu: What language is it in?
yamdan: It's written in Rust.
<TallTed> gkellogg -- I've added the links you muttered about being missing. Now on both https://
<pchampin> +1 manu, I have a plan to publish a WASM version of my implementation
dlongley: we have a list of implementations in the 'wiki' on our GitHub repository, too.
Timeline to CR (incl. 3 month period for TAG review)
phila: We invited the TAG to review our specification on the 7th of June. They have three months to get back to us. If we don't hear from them, we are still clear to go to TPAC.
phila: I'll stick with 16th and 30th, then at TPAC. The other ones will be cancelled as there is not enough to fill their agendas.