[wg/rch] RDF Datasets Canonicalization and Hash WG recharter

[pchampin]

New charter proposal, reviewers please take note.

Charter Review

Charter

diff from charter template

chair CG dashboard

What kind of charter is this? Check the relevant box / remove irrelevant branches.

• Existing WG recharter
• If this is a charter extension or revision, any issue discussion:

The WG has published one REC-track deliverable (RDF-CANON) and one note (RCH-EXPLAINER). The goal of this new charter is to maintain those deliverables, noticing that RDF-CANON allows new features.

cc @philarcher @peacekeeper

[philarcher]

I'm happy with this. The only trigger for any change in the normative spec would be if someone found a security hole that needed to be plugged. In the absence of that, I don't expect the group to take any action. We're empowered to by this charter, but unless I'm mistaken, we shan't be doing so.

[ruoxiran]

no comment or request from APA.

[himorin]

no comment or request from i18n

[simoneonofri]

From a Security perspective, this is a nice step for RDF security.

@philarcher I understand that, in any case, that was already a verification of the work, as in the explainer, correct?

[plehegar]

PING is fine.

[simoneonofri]

@pchampin can you confirm we have there was already a verification? In this case, I can already put the label on it. Thank you!

[pchampin]

To be clear: the report by Arnold and Longley, describing the algorithm URDNA2015, was reviewed by independent concultants.

The RDFC-1.0 algorithm described in the recommendation differs only very lightly from URDNA2015, in ways that do not change the experts' evaluation.