IRC log of dxwg on 2022-11-08
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 19:56:42 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #dxwg
- 19:56:42 [RRSAgent]
- logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/11/08-dxwg-irc
- 19:56:51 [Caroline_]
- rrsagent, make logs public
- 19:57:01 [Caroline_]
- chair: Caroline_
- 19:57:07 [Caroline_]
- Present+
- 19:57:30 [pchampin]
- Présent+
- 20:00:21 [Caroline_]
- regrets+ AndreaPerego, Peter
- 20:03:01 [Nobu_Ogura]
- Nobu_Ogura has joined #dxwg
- 20:05:18 [Nobu_Ogura]
- present+
- 20:06:51 [riccardoAlbertoni]
- riccardoAlbertoni has joined #dxwg
- 20:12:10 [annette_g]
- annette_g has joined #dxwg
- 20:12:18 [annette_g]
- present+
- 20:13:58 [Caroline_]
- scribe: riccardoAlbertoni
- 20:14:09 [riccardoAlbertoni]
- spre
- 20:14:22 [riccardoAlbertoni]
- present +
- 20:14:34 [riccardoAlbertoni]
- scribenick: riccardoAlbertoni
- 20:14:57 [Caroline_]
- https://www.w3.org/2022/10/25-dxwg-minutes
- 20:15:15 [riccardoAlbertoni]
- proposed: accept the meeting minutes https://www.w3.org/2022/10/25-dxwg-minutes
- 20:15:29 [Caroline_]
- +1
- 20:15:30 [riccardoAlbertoni]
- +1
- 20:15:32 [Nobu_Ogura]
- +1
- 20:15:33 [pchampin]
- +0
- 20:15:38 [annette_g]
- +1
- 20:15:59 [riccardoAlbertoni]
- resolved: accept the meeting minutes https://www.w3.org/2022/10/25-dxwg-minutes
- 20:17:41 [riccardoAlbertoni]
- proposed: setting a doodle to decide the proper plenary meeting time
- 20:18:05 [riccardoAlbertoni]
- +1
- 20:18:06 [Caroline_]
- +1
- 20:18:11 [annette_g]
- +1
- 20:18:11 [pchampin]
- +1
- 20:18:11 [Nobu_Ogura]
- +1
- 20:18:29 [riccardoAlbertoni]
- resolved: setting a doodle to decide the proper plenary meeting time
- 20:18:47 [riccardoAlbertoni]
- Caroline_: I can prepare the doodle
- 20:19:12 [riccardoAlbertoni]
- Topic: DCAT subgroup
- 20:19:20 [Caroline_]
- scribe: Caroline_
- 20:19:28 [Caroline_]
- ack riccardoAlbertoni
- 20:20:00 [Caroline_]
- riccardoAlbertoni: DCAT subgroup discussed editorial issues
- 20:20:11 [riccardoAlbertoni]
- https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1498
- 20:20:30 [Caroline_]
- ... suggested updates on turtle file as it is indicated on the link above
- 20:20:40 [riccardoAlbertoni]
- https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/pull/1538#issuecomment-1302340125
- 20:21:09 [annette_g]
- q+ to make a suggestion about the checksums
- 20:21:12 [riccardoAlbertoni]
- https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1526#issuecomment-1292637956
- 20:21:20 [Caroline_]
- ... we decided what is on that link https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/pull/1538#issuecomment-1302340125
- 20:22:12 [Caroline_]
- ... the privacy group replied here https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1526#issuecomment-1292637956
- 20:22:15 [riccardoAlbertoni]
- https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/pull/1542
- 20:23:00 [Caroline_]
- ... I am starting to draft a response and will share with the Plenary and also the other editors https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/pull/1542
- 20:23:07 [Caroline_]
- ... if you have any considerations, please let me know
- 20:24:12 [pchampin]
- https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1536
- 20:24:45 [Caroline_]
- ... I haven't had the time to look at this issue Definition of dcat:spatialResolutionInMeters incompatible/problematic with JSON-LD https://github.com/w3c/dxwg/issues/1536
- 20:25:53 [riccardoAlbertoni]
- pchampin: problem with JSON number xsd:decimal, long discussion on whether the problem is about JSON-lD or xsd
- 20:26:23 [Caroline_]
- scribe: riccardoAlbertoni
- 20:26:24 [pchampin]
- scribe+
- 20:26:38 [Caroline_]
- scribe: pchampin
- 20:26:47 [pchampin]
- pchampin: for DCAT, I believe that the solution would be to accept both xsd:double and xsd;decimal for that property
- 20:27:23 [annette_g]
- q+
- 20:28:02 [Caroline_]
- ack annette_g
- 20:28:02 [Zakim]
- annette_g, you wanted to make a suggestion about the checksums and to
- 20:28:11 [riccardoAlbertoni]
- pchampin: I am going to prepare a PR
- 20:29:08 [riccardoAlbertoni]
- annette_g: I wonder how difficult is for people to read the two types
- 20:29:36 [riccardoAlbertoni]
- pchampin: I think this should not impact much, I need to doublecheck
- 20:30:24 [riccardoAlbertoni]
- pchampin: when you put a number in JSONLD is canonilize in the e notation, and that is part of the problem
- 20:31:40 [riccardoAlbertoni]
- annette_g: I do not know I have to think about how it impact
- 20:31:41 [Caroline_]
- q?
- 20:32:41 [pchampin]
- q+
- 20:33:31 [riccardoAlbertoni]
- q+
- 20:33:33 [Caroline_]
- ack pchampin
- 20:34:49 [riccardoAlbertoni]
- pchampin: the verifiable credential describe the solution suggested by annette, verifiable credentian are a way to embed the graph,
- 20:34:58 [riccardoAlbertoni]
- q+
- 20:35:04 [Caroline_]
- ack riccardoAlbertoni
- 20:35:08 [Caroline_]
- scribe: Caroline_
- 20:35:49 [pchampin]
- s/to embed the graph/to embed the graph, together with metadata including cryptographic signature/
- 20:36:10 [annette_g]
- annette_g: we need to provide some guidance for how to let users know how a checksum was calculated. Could we add a property that is the URL of a description of how it was calculated?
- 20:36:59 [Caroline_]
- riccardoAlbertoni: I think we should point to possible solutions, but the DCAT it is not a Best Practice document. It could be risky to provide it. I am not sure we are in the position to have a deep discussion about it and
- 20:37:07 [annette_g]
- q+
- 20:37:29 [Caroline_]
- ... it is a new requirement. An important one, but we are at the end of the standarization
- 20:38:17 [Caroline_]
- ... if the proposal goes forward, I suggest to include it
- 20:38:26 [riccardoAlbertoni]
- ?q
- 20:38:28 [riccardoAlbertoni]
- q?
- 20:38:34 [Caroline_]
- pchampin: I can propose an additional task
- 20:38:36 [Caroline_]
- ack annette_g
- 20:38:39 [Caroline_]
- scribe: riccardoAlbertoni
- 20:39:10 [riccardoAlbertoni]
- how verifiable credential work with the efforts coming from other groups?
- 20:39:26 [riccardoAlbertoni]
- annette_g: how verifiable credential work with the efforts coming from other groups?
- 20:39:56 [Caroline_]
- q?
- 20:40:23 [riccardoAlbertoni]
- annette_g: If we include checksum for distribution we need to admit that the integrity opf metadata is in scope
- 20:40:51 [riccardoAlbertoni]
- q+
- 20:41:01 [Caroline_]
- ack riccardoAlbertoni
- 20:41:07 [Caroline_]
- scribe: Caroline_
- 20:41:30 [annette_g]
- annette_g: a checksum is absolutely no use if it is not calculated in the same way each time. I don't believe we can offer a property that is a checksum without dealing with this issue.
- 20:41:42 [Caroline_]
- riccardoAlbertoni: I think we need a document about the security and integrity to provide guidance
- 20:41:42 [pchampin]
- q+
- 20:41:53 [Caroline_]
- ... I don't think it is only a DCAT problem
- 20:42:09 [Caroline_]
- ... I agree we must acknowledge that the integrity of metadata is included
- 20:42:35 [Caroline_]
- ... at the same time, the solution that is been required is at the same level of DWBP, which is more transversal
- 20:42:57 [annette_g]
- q+
- 20:43:17 [Caroline_]
- ... I don't think we are in the position to do it, since the recommendation is to make a DCAT standard, not best practices
- 20:43:21 [Caroline_]
- ack pchampin
- 20:43:48 [Caroline_]
- pchampin: the standards are going to be complementary
- 20:44:15 [Caroline_]
- ... +1 that we should not try to reinvent the wheel
- 20:44:49 [Caroline_]
- ... let's point to existing standards that already talk about it
- 20:44:52 [Caroline_]
- ack annette_g
- 20:45:14 [Caroline_]
- annette_g: I think it is hard to get people to adopt the verifiable credentials
- 20:45:27 [riccardoAlbertoni]
- annette_g: one concern is that adopting verifiable credential can be a barrier to the adoption of checksum
- 20:45:36 [Caroline_]
- scribe: riccardoAlbertoni
- 20:47:22 [riccardoAlbertoni]
- pchampin: the way they define thing is very general, verifiable credential require jsonld, i can simpatize with your worrying, but at least it is something we can point at
- 20:48:10 [riccardoAlbertoni]
- pchampin: I am wary to trying to come up with owr own naive solution
- 20:48:22 [riccardoAlbertoni]
- annette_g: no one wants that
- 20:49:50 [annette_g]
- annette_g: I wouldn't want us to limit the utility of the checksum property to those who are using json-ld or verifiable credentials.
- 20:50:25 [annette_g]
- ... If we use a URL, that can be used to link to any method of generating the checksum. What's important is that we enable people to indicate this aspect of the checksum.
- 20:50:47 [annette_g]
- ...I don't think the checksum proposal is complete enough for real world use without this.
- 20:50:56 [riccardoAlbertoni]
- q+
- 20:51:00 [Caroline_]
- ack riccardoAlbertoni
- 20:51:03 [Caroline_]
- scribe: Caroline_
- 20:51:23 [Caroline_]
- riccardoAlbertoni: I wonder if we need to put this as a requirement for other groups
- 20:52:24 [Caroline_]
- ... if I understand annette_g concerns, what we are doing is not covering all that DCAT need to address
- 20:53:07 [Caroline_]
- ... perhaps instead of doing a wide solution we could see the missing parts
- 20:53:27 [Caroline_]
- ... which requirements of other groups could contribute
- 20:53:58 [Caroline_]
- ... for instance, in the case of RDF, there is another group working on it. So we could put our requirements
- 20:54:51 [Caroline_]
- annette_g: you are not comparing the same things
- 20:55:18 [Caroline_]
- ... we trying to ensure that what we are downloading is accurate
- 20:55:36 [Caroline_]
- ... we want the metadata to be public so we need a trustful source
- 20:55:59 [pchampin]
- https also guarantees that you are "talking" to the genuine server
- 20:56:02 [Caroline_]
- ... I didn't find anything about it yet
- 20:57:30 [pchampin]
- https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTTP/Headers/Digest
- 20:58:01 [Caroline_]
- scribe: riccardoAlbertoni
- 20:59:43 [annette_g]
- annette_g: https doesn't ensure that the server you contact is authoritative, only that it is run by the person who requested the certificate.
- 20:59:57 [pchampin]
- yes, my bad :)
- 21:00:32 [Caroline_]
- scribe: Caroline_
- 21:00:54 [Caroline_]
- riccardoAlbertoni: I am not sure there is a guide to achieve it
- 21:01:03 [Caroline_]
- pchampin: I will check about it
- 21:02:44 [Caroline_]
- regrets+ AndreaPerego, antoine, Peter
- 21:02:46 [annette_g]
- annette: the issue arises because it's not obvious how to generate single checksum for multiple files, and which files are included
- 21:03:04 [Caroline_]
- rrsagent, create minutes v2
- 21:03:04 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/11/08-dxwg-minutes.html Caroline_
- 21:04:26 [riccardoAlbertoni]
- RRSAgent, make logs public
- 21:04:34 [riccardoAlbertoni]
- RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
- 21:04:34 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/11/08-dxwg-minutes.html riccardoAlbertoni
- 21:04:59 [riccardoAlbertoni]
- meeting: DXWG plenary
- 21:05:04 [riccardoAlbertoni]
- RRSAgent, draft minutes v2
- 21:05:04 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/11/08-dxwg-minutes.html riccardoAlbertoni
- 23:02:06 [Zakim]
- Zakim has left #dxwg