15:59:01 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #rch
15:59:01 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2022/11/09-rch-irc
15:59:04 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
15:59:06 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), phila
15:59:09 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rch
15:59:19 <phila> meeting: RCH bi-weekly meeting 2022-11-09
15:59:27 <phila> chair: Markus
16:00:21 <yamdan> yamdan has joined #rch
16:00:31 <AndyS> present+
16:00:41 <markus_sabadello> markus_sabadello has joined #rch
16:00:45 <ivan> present+
16:00:57 <phila> present+
16:01:14 <gkellogg> present+
16:01:50 <aalobaid> aalobaid has joined #rch
16:02:00 <Tobias_> Tobias_ has joined #rch
16:02:14 <kazue> kazue has joined #rch
16:02:36 <phila> scribe+ phila
16:02:40 <dlongley> present+
16:02:47 <TallTed> present+
16:02:49 <phila> markus_sabadello: We'll try and get some scribe diversity in future!
16:02:55 <phila> Topic: New members
16:02:56 <yamdan> present+
16:03:03 <manu> present+
16:03:09 <phila> No new members
16:03:10 <kazue> present+
16:03:28 <phila> Topic: Timing of the calls
16:03:47 <phila> markus_sabadello: TIming for our friends in Japan is even worse than it was now that DST has ended.
16:04:00 <seabass> seabass has joined #rch
16:04:09 <phila> ... For Dan and Kazue it's 01:00 tomorrow. Can we think about an earlier time?
16:04:20 <phila> ... We have people on US West Coast, so it's challenging
16:04:45 <phila> ... option is to stick with one time, maybe a bit earlier. Other option is to alternate between 2 times but that mean we never have everyone
16:05:29 <manu> q+ to ask about west coast vs. Japan participation.
16:05:30 <phila> markus_sabadello: One option is to move this call one or two hours earlier. 2 Hours makes is 23:00 Japan, 06:00 West Coast
16:05:40 <phila> ack manu
16:05:40 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to ask about west coast vs. Japan participation.
16:05:48 <kazue> q
16:06:01 <kazue> q+
16:06:04 <phila> manu: Given that Gregg is west coast, 06:00 is difficult but of course 01:00 is bad for Kazue and Dan
16:06:17 <phila> manu: The question is how many people will we lose with either option
16:06:18 <TallTed> 2 hours earlier also slams into just-set Solid CG weekly
16:06:34 <phila> ... How many other west coast people besides Gregg?
16:06:45 <markus_sabadello> ack kazue
16:06:57 <phila> kazue: I wouldn't request 2 hours earlier, but one hour would e very nice
16:07:18 <phila> markus_sabadello: That would be midnight for Japan - that's very generous of you to suggest that.
16:07:31 <phila> gkellogg: I can do 07:00 yes
16:07:33 <yamdan> q+
16:07:39 <phila> markus_sabadello: Dan, how about you?
16:07:47 <markus_sabadello> ack yamdan
16:07:56 <phila> yamdan: I can join if we meet just one hour earlier
16:08:10 <TallTed> A doodle poll also seems worthwhile, to try to get opinions of anyone not on *this* call
16:08:16 <phila> markus_sabadello: Then I think I can say thank you to everyone. For me in Europe it's always easy
16:08:34 <phila> markus_sabadello: So we'll start an hour earlier next time (2 weeks time)
16:08:55 <phila> TallTed: It seems worthwhile taking a Doodle Poll to include people who are not on *this* call
16:09:26 <phila> markus_sabadello: I would propose, rather than a Doodle which will be difficult to get everyone to vote, we'll just send a note to the list and ask for comments
16:09:28 <dlehn1> present+
16:09:37 <phila> ... We'll give it a week or so and of no one objects, we'll go for it
16:09:40 <phila> phila: +1
16:09:45 <TallTed> sure. a poll is a poll. :-)
16:10:13 <phila> Topic: FPWD of the RCDH deliverable
16:10:37 <phila> markus_sabadello: We still have an open question whether it's going to be one or two docs. Time will tell. We can figure that out
16:10:48 <phila> ... but important I think to start with something concrete
16:11:04 <phila> ... latest state of the doc - we have 2 algorithms
16:11:15 <markus_sabadello> https://github.com/w3c/rch-rdc/issues/4
16:11:25 <markus_sabadello> https://github.com/w3c/rch-rdc/issues/6
16:11:41 <phila> markus_sabadello: We've had some opinions on the two options and how to start with something concrete
16:11:58 <markus_sabadello> https://github.com/w3c/rch-rdc/
16:12:03 <phila> ... I don't think we've come to a decision yet. At the same time, in practice, the repo has a lot of activity
16:12:18 <phila> ... Gregg has done a lot of work based on the URDNA2105 doc
16:12:26 <phila> ... That's what's now in the repo
16:12:39 <phila> gkellogg: I believe that we are tasked with bringing that as a FPWD.
16:12:58 <phila> gkellogg: That doesn't pre-decide the output.
16:13:10 <phila> ... I've prepared everything so that we can make a decision today
16:13:40 <phila> markus_sabadello: We haven't decided formally how we want to start. In theory, we could start from scratch but in reality, best way os to start with that doc as a basis but add issues to the doc
16:13:51 <AndyS_> AndyS_ has joined #rch
16:13:52 <phila> ... to explain that there are multiple choices to be made
16:14:15 <phila> markus_sabadello: Want to find a balance between having a concrete starting doc and not precluding or assuming anything
16:14:40 <manu> +1 to adding issues and publishing what we have right now.
16:14:54 <gkellogg> q+
16:14:56 <phila> markus_sabadello: I think starting with what we have now makes sense - with issues added
16:15:01 <markus_sabadello> ack gkellogg
16:15:33 <phila> gkellogg: There are issue markers. Phil put in a PR to make sure the open issues are mentioned within the doc. From what you say, Markus, maybe we need something in the intro that makes that more explicit
16:15:51 <phila> gkellogg: That would make it more obvious and easier to give feedback
16:16:17 <phila> markus_sabadello: I agree. Maybe a sentence or so. I was thinking just linking to that one issue where we have been discussing those two algorithms
16:16:25 <manu> q+ to support the approach, and note that Data Integrity needs to reference /something/, right now it's the CCG spec.
16:16:27 <phila> gkellogg: There is a link - that's there, but it's one of several
16:16:40 <markus_sabadello> ack manu
16:16:40 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to support the approach, and note that Data Integrity needs to reference /something/, right now it's the CCG spec.
16:17:11 <phila> manu: Just a +1 to support the notion of let's publish what Gregg has published to date. Make it clear that there are open issues and that we're looking for feedback
16:17:59 <ivan> q+
16:18:02 <phila> manu: One of the things I'm worried about is that the Integrity Spec links back to the CCG spec in a non-normative way and is going to FPWD tomorrow
16:18:17 <AndyS> AndyS has joined #rch
16:18:18 <markus_sabadello> ack ivan
16:18:24 <phila> manu: So I'd like to be able to link to the RDC spec as soon as possible.
16:18:52 <dlongley> +1 to Ivan and Manu, +1 to get FPWD out
16:18:58 <phila> ivan: I wouldn't worry too much about that. But I am also very much in favor of getting the RDC FPWD out as soon as as we can.
16:19:08 <gkellogg> q=
16:19:20 <gkellogg> q+
16:19:22 <ivan> q+
16:20:06 <markus_sabadello> ack gkellogg
16:20:13 <gkellogg> https://w3c.github.io/rch-rdc/spec/
16:20:55 <gkellogg> https://github.com/w3c/rch-rdc/pull/26
16:20:58 <phila> gkellogg: There were two PRS
16:21:25 <phila> gkellogg: This one adds some more descriptions and examples, including diagrams, which make it easier to follow.
16:21:32 <phila> ... and the PR ...
16:21:35 <gkellogg> https://github.com/w3c/rch-rdc/pull/14
16:21:56 <phila> gkellogg: This just is bookkeeping. The original spec. The question is around the short name.
16:21:57 <manu> +1 to the diagrams in #26
16:22:18 <manu> q+ to note would prefer a more descriptive shortname.
16:22:28 <phila> gkellogg: The auto-generated short name is rch-rdc but there's a longer version
16:22:55 <phila> markus_sabadello: Do you think both of these PRs should be included before FPWD?
16:23:13 <phila> gkellogg: The examples make it easier to follow and sets up  a template for future exmaples
16:23:46 <phila> q+
16:24:07 <phila> gkellogg: if you look at the PR, the prview version doesn't seem to show the diagrams but I've linked to those.
16:24:20 <phila> ... There are issues around a11y that we will address in due course
16:24:23 <markus_sabadello> ack ivan
16:24:59 <phila> ivan: Gregg said most of what I wanted to say. If I can play staff contact for a moment. Yes Gregg we need to decide on a short name and that must be part of the resolution that we pass
16:25:33 <manu> +1 to use Echidna for publishing.
16:26:05 <phila> ivan: We need as a separate resolution or as part of the main one that we want to use Echidna. It means that once FPWD is set up, then any PR merge triggers a new publication
16:26:42 <phila> ivan: It's normal that the preview doesn't include diagrams - that's life.
16:26:42 <markus_sabadello> q?
16:27:25 <phila> manu: Looks to me as if `rdf-dataset-canonicalization' is the best short name
16:27:40 <phila> ... The other alternative is `rdf-dataset-c14n'
16:27:46 <ivan> q+
16:27:49 <phila> ... And +1 to using Echidna
16:27:54 <gkellogg> q+
16:27:57 <ivan> ack manu
16:27:57 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to note would prefer a more descriptive shortname.
16:27:58 <markus_sabadello> ack manu
16:28:04 <markus_sabadello> ack phila
16:28:29 <phila> -> https://github.com/w3c/rch-rdc/issues/1 Issue 1
16:28:29 <dlongley> scribe+
16:28:30 <dlongley> phila: I haven't had a change to look at them yet, but I'm really pleased ... as far as examples are concerned, we can probably close that issue because you've done it.
16:28:47 <dlongley> phila: Given that you've put examples in, I would propose that can be closed, thank you for doing it.
16:28:56 <dlongley> phila: On the short name, "rdf-dataset-canonicalization" is not short.
16:29:05 <dlongley> phila: Actually, I would prefer "rdc".
16:29:16 <dlongley> phila: I actually type in the names of these things directly, I don't want to do that.
16:29:35 <dlongley> sebastian: You can also spell canonicalization differently depending on where you live.
16:29:47 <markus_sabadello> q?
16:29:51 <dlongley> scribe-
16:29:55 <markus_sabadello> ack ivan
16:29:55 <markus_sabadello> q+
16:30:22 <phila> ivan: There is a minor thing we have to decide... when we put docs into the official publishing list, we have to give them a category for search terms
16:30:52 <phila> ... It's not urgent but PA will be asked. We could say 'security' and 'semantic web'?? But we need an agreement
16:31:03 <phila> markus_sabadello: Do we have to do that for FPWD?
16:31:24 <phila> ivan: We have to it for when the staff contact makes th official publication request. It doesn't require a formal WG resolution
16:31:36 <markus_sabadello> q?
16:31:37 <phila> q?
16:31:40 <markus_sabadello> ack gkellogg
16:31:57 <phila> gkellogg: I put some other ideas forward. rdf-c14n, rdf-canon
16:32:17 <AndyS> +1 to rdf-c14n
16:32:29 <phila> gkellogg: For the Echidna process, we created some GitHub actions that would push the publication when PRs were made to a specific branch
16:32:38 <markus_sabadello> q?
16:32:40 <phila> gkellogg: That's probably the way we want to go
16:32:46 <ivan> q+
16:33:02 <phila> markus_sabadello: I think Echidna on the main branch makes most sense to me. Saves additional admin work
16:33:34 <manu> q+ to every new PR is a new WD -- storage is cheap?
16:33:38 <phila> gkellogg: That means every PR creates a new publication. If we have a separate branch, we can agree informally to then push ones we ant to publish to that branch
16:33:44 <phila> markus_sabadello: That sounds like additional friction
16:34:03 <manu> q-
16:34:06 <phila> gkellogg: I think we always have to link to the previous draft - is that automated?
16:34:08 <phila> ivan: Yes
16:34:26 <phila> markus_sabadello: On the name, I assume the short name would be the same as the GH repo?
16:34:31 <phila> ivan: Doesn't have to be
16:34:47 <phila> markus_sabadello: It seems good practice even if not technically required
16:34:55 <phila> ack markus_sabadello
16:35:09 <phila> gkellogg: I would support making the GH repo name the same - saves later confusion
16:35:26 <phila> gkellogg: We should also consider short names for the other docs
16:35:47 <phila> markus_sabadello: We're not yet sure whether there will be one or two docs. So we should avoid a name that implies only one
16:36:12 <phila> markus_sabadello: Calling it canonicalization can include hashing, but if we put in hash we coldn't include c14n
16:36:19 <ivan> https://www.w3.org/TR/
16:36:52 <phila> ivan: Coming back to the tags issue. If you go to the /TR page, the search bar ives you a pull down for tags. We could create a new one, but I think data and security probably cover it
16:37:39 <manu> q+ to favor automatic publication, it's easier on everyone.
16:37:44 <phila> ivan: I have been in WGs that use the model that Gregg describes, but I've also been in ones that use the main branch. When I had my arm twisted in the DID spec to use the main branch it turned out to be simpler
16:37:46 <markus_sabadello> ack ivan
16:37:47 <seabass> +1 to rdf-canon, personally :)
16:37:59 <Tobias_> +1 to rdf-canon from me too
16:37:59 <phila> ivan: So I am in favor of auto publishing from the get go.
16:38:27 <phila> ivan: You can have PRs merged several times in a day and it will do the right thing. Dates and all that are taken care of
16:38:43 <yamdan> +1 to rdf-canon
16:38:50 <dlongley> +1 to letting the robots do what they like to do
16:38:54 <phila> ivan: We've never hot any problem on that front with Echidna, so I'm in favor of using the main branch.
16:38:57 <phila> q?
16:39:09 <markus_sabadello> ack manu
16:39:09 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to favor automatic publication, it's easier on everyone.
16:39:35 <phila> manu: Just to underscore what Ivan was saying. I've had nothing but good experiences using the main branch.
16:39:56 <aalobaid> +1 to rdf-canon
16:40:02 <Tobias_> can somebody share a link for Echidna? I am not familiar with it.
16:40:19 <manu> https://labs.w3.org/echidna/
16:40:23 <markus_sabadello> POLL: Which short name should we use for our first deliverable? Options: rdf-rdc, rdf-dataset-canonicalization, rdf-c14n, rdf-canon, or any other.
16:40:38 <Tobias_> thanks, manu!
16:40:44 <gkellogg> rdf-canon or rdf-c14n
16:40:44 <manu> +1 to rdf-canon
16:40:46 <phila> phila: rdf-canon
16:40:47 <ivan> rdf-canon
16:40:49 <seabass> rdf-canon
16:40:52 <yamdan> rdf-canon
16:40:54 <AndyS> rdf-c14n > rdf-canon > rdf-rdc > rdf-dataset-canonicalization
16:40:54 <aalobaid> rdf-canon
16:40:59 <Tobias_> rdf-canon
16:41:05 <kazue> rdf-canon
16:41:14 <dlongley> rdf-canon > rdf-rdc
16:41:20 <markus_sabadello> rdf-c14n > rdf-canon > rdf-cdc
16:41:30 <TallTed> rdf-canon > rdf-c14n > rdf-rdc > rdf-dataset-canonicalization
16:41:33 <phila> markus_sabadello: That looks like a clear preference
16:41:47 <phila> markus_sabadello: Anyone opposed to rdf-canon?
16:42:26 <ivan> +1
16:42:46 <gkellogg> q+
16:43:30 <gkellogg> q-
16:43:47 <phila> gkellogg: Should we merge the two outstanding PRs
16:45:40 <gkellogg> +1
16:45:51 <phila> Proposed resolution: Merge PR 26 (examples) and PR 14 (remove old boilerplate) and mention Issue 6 in the intro
16:45:58 <gkellogg> +1
16:45:58 <dlongley> +1
16:45:59 <ivan> +1
16:46:04 <yamdan> +1
16:46:04 <manu> +1
16:46:04 <TallTed> +1
16:46:08 <markus_sabadello> +1
16:46:09 <Tobias_> +1
16:46:10 <dlehn1> +1
16:46:10 <kazue> +1
16:46:14 <AndyS> +1
16:46:16 <aalobaid> +1
16:46:22 <phila> +1
16:46:57 <phila> Resolution: Merge PR 26 (examples) and PR 14 (remove old boilerplate) and mention Issue 6 in the intro
16:47:09 <phila> Proposed resolution: close issue 1 that asks for examples
16:47:13 <dlongley> +1
16:47:16 <AndyS> +1
16:47:18 <phila> +1
16:47:18 <gkellogg> +1
16:47:19 <yamdan> +1
16:47:19 <ivan> +1
16:47:25 <manu> +1
16:47:25 <dlehn1> +1
16:47:25 <markus_sabadello> +1
16:47:31 <phila> Resolution: close issue 1 that asks for examples
16:47:31 <aalobaid> +1
16:48:39 <phila> Proposed resolution: That the draft at https://w3c.github.io/rch-rdc/spec/ be published as a First Public Working Draft with a requested short name of "rdf-canon" and make use of the Echidna tooling. We suggest tags of "data" and "security"
16:48:41 <gkellogg> +1
16:48:41 <dlongley> +1
16:48:44 <manu> +1
16:48:45 <ivan> +1
16:48:45 <TallTed> +1
16:48:45 <aalobaid> +1
16:48:46 <yamdan> +1
16:48:47 <phila> +1
16:48:48 <AndyS> +1
16:48:49 <Tobias_> +1
16:48:50 <markus_sabadello> +1
16:48:52 <kazue> +1
16:49:03 <dlehn1> +1
16:49:13 <seabass> +1
16:49:26 <phila> Resolution: That the draft at https://w3c.github.io/rch-rdc/spec/ be published as a First Public Working Draft with a requested short name of "rdf-canon" and make use of the Echidna tooling. We suggest tags of "data" and "security"
16:49:44 <ivan> q+
16:50:00 <phila> gkellogg: We do have to decide on renaming the repo
16:50:06 <aalobaid> +1
16:50:10 <phila> ... if we do so then someone will need to make that happen
16:51:04 <seabass> I would be in favour of renaming the repository - much better to do it before FWPD
16:51:14 <aalobaid> +1
16:51:42 <phila> Proposed resolution: that the rch-rdc GitHub repository should be renamed to rdf-canon to match the short name of the draft spec
16:51:46 <gkellogg> +1
16:51:47 <dlongley> +1
16:51:47 <markus_sabadello> +1
16:51:47 <ivan> +1
16:51:49 <TallTed> +1
16:51:49 <Tobias_> +1
16:51:49 <aalobaid> +1
16:51:49 <phila> +1
16:51:50 <yamdan> +1
16:51:51 <kazue> +1
16:52:01 <manu> +1
16:52:06 <AndyS> +1
16:52:15 <dlehn1> +1
16:52:23 <seabass> +1
16:52:37 <markus_sabadello> seabass: Why do we have the resolution twice?
16:52:45 <phila> Resolution: that the rch-rdc GitHub repository should be renamed to rdf-canon to match the short name of the draft spec
16:53:02 <markus_sabadello> phila: One is just to draft the resolution text, second time is to actually vote on it
16:53:21 <phila> markus_sabadello: I just want to mention the issue of editors
16:53:26 <phila> Topic: Editors
16:54:13 <yamdan> q+
16:54:20 <phila> markus_sabadello: Right now we have Dave and Gregg. Phil and I contacted yamdan to see if he would also be interested in being an editor, would be able to review PRs and give his input that way
16:54:55 <phila> yamdan: I have to study/catch up, but I would like to contribute. I am willing to be a co-editor if possible
16:55:10 <gkellogg> q+
16:55:19 <phila> seabass: I'd be happy to help with editing, but that would be an editorial review more than a technical one
16:55:37 <markus_sabadello> ack ivan
16:55:38 <gkellogg> q+ to note that all members should review, and significant contributions would suggest becoming an editor.
16:55:44 <markus_sabadello> yamdan:
16:55:44 <ivan> q+
16:55:44 <yamdan> q-
16:55:44 <phila> zakim, close the queue
16:55:45 <Zakim> ok, phila, the speaker queue is closed
16:55:54 <markus_sabadello> ack yamdan
16:55:58 <markus_sabadello> ack gkellogg
16:55:59 <Zakim> gkellogg, you wanted to note that all members should review, and significant contributions would suggest becoming an editor.
16:56:20 <phila> gkellogg: Great to have more editors. There's a lot to be done. My experience is that the expectation is that WG do review PRs and the state of the doc
16:56:53 <phila> ... and we have a call to the wider world to review. If your make a significant contribution, you'd be asked to be an editor
16:57:09 <phila> markus_sabadello: You don't have to be an editor to contribute to the doc - anyone in the Wg can write a PR
16:57:10 <markus_sabadello> ack ivan
16:57:52 <phila> ivan: The practical admin steps to be done once the PRs have been done need to be done by Pierre-Antoine
16:58:06 <phila> markus_sabadello: we will reach out to him
16:58:34 <phila> ivan: This is one of the things that must have a staff contact
16:58:42 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:58:42 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/11/09-rch-minutes.html phila
16:59:19 <phila> markus_sabadello: We'll re-group in 2 weeks, probably an hour earlier
16:59:29 <TallTed> most important for different time will be updating the calendar item
16:59:30 <phila> RRSAgent, draft minutes
16:59:31 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2022/11/09-rch-minutes.html phila
18:24:50 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rch
18:41:38 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rch
18:45:14 <gkellogg_> gkellogg_ has joined #rch
19:10:54 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rch
19:27:08 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rch
19:47:58 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rch
19:56:09 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #rch
20:00:22 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rch
20:08:14 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rch
20:13:59 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rch
20:15:22 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rch
20:33:31 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rch
20:34:18 <Zakim> Zakim has left #rch
20:52:34 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rch
21:27:05 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rch
21:37:41 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rch
21:56:18 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rch
22:10:53 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rch
22:57:57 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rch
23:14:58 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rch
23:33:50 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rch
23:50:12 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #rch