Meeting minutes
Announcements and Introductions
bigbluehat: Call is mostly about chartering.
manu: VC 2.0 is now a standard, which uses JSON-LD.
… We have some large production deployments going out.
… Yesterday, there was a presentation in the VC CG around using the VC supply chain. The UN has UNIEC, and the idea is to publish JSON-LD as linked data.
… This makes JSON-LD and RDF central underpinning technology for a fair amount of world trade.
… The current feature set works well.
… Secondly, the data integrity group using looking at quantum cryptography, and looking to use zero-knowledge in graphs.
… We need to do that in a post-quantum world, as elliptic curve can be broken by quantum.
… The use case would be to query RDF graphs to query for a proof of some fact, such as age or license.
… You'd run a sparql query on a graph you download and be able to prove locally.
… There is other RDF/crypto work going on as well.
victor_lu: JSON-LD has become huge in our community.
bigbluehat: SPDX using JSON-LD is great!
… Is there a place for us to watch progress on some of the things manu mentioned?
manu: There is a summary every week in the data integrity CG.
… RDF-star may help in some cases, but it's not clear exactly how.
… Note that this is leading-edge research right now, and it could be a couple of years before something concrete emerges.
… Using SPARQL and ZKP is just emerging.
bigbluehat: We can make data integrity a topic of a future CG call.
… I believe victor_lu is in the CG, but not the WG right now.
TallTed: Chair's desecration for observers.
victor_lu: love to join the WG.
bigbluehat: Decisions need to be made by WG members.
Rechartering
<bigbluehat> https://
bigbluehat: Main thing to focus on today is the charter. This draft has been a work in progress, and we've been working on the scope.
… In discussions, we've discussed where CBOR-LD and YAML-LD fit.
… iherman raised the idea of their being multiple WGs.
… If we're doing multiple formats, we want to rename to something like "Linked Data Formats WG".
manu: Generally, we'd rather not have multiple working groups. It's helpful for all the formats to feed off of each other.
… There are lessons from YAML-LD that inform JSON-LD and CBOR-LD.
… Smaller groups would split attention and create a bigger demand on time.
… We're -1 on separate WGs, from an availability prespective.
<dlongley> +1 to what manu is saying ... we should preventing setting up barriers between the format designs/discussion and avoid duplicating overhead with multiple groups that likely have very similar members
manu: +1 to broadening the scope of the group to consider related formats.
… It would also reduce staff effort. If it's getting out of hand, we look back to the charter.
… Right now, the charter is arguably too narrow. It will be a lot of work, but the specs feel pretty mature.
… YAML-LD is mature, and CBOR-LD is getting there.
… There are LD-adjacent things to think about.
… Maybe not data integrity, or canonicalization.
… There are things that W3C needs to think about on how we're going to maintain these work items.
<dlongley> +1 to Linked Data Formats WG approach
bigbluehat: I'm in favor of the LD formats approach, vs chopping the group down to multiple pieces.
… related to a LD formats WG, it would be worth considering what other specs might be worth considering.
… A perenial request is a hash-based context.