Re: Credentials CG Telecon Minutes for 2015-11-10

My apologies for missing the call this week.  I will be in attendance at
our next call.  I second Stuart's thoughts.

On Wednesday, November 11, 2015, Stuart Sutton <sasutton@dublincore.net>
wrote:

> Manu, my aplogies for missing the call and your briefing; but, thanks to
> the excellent scribing, it is clear for me that the position you have
> framed to extend an explicit, open invitation to those opposed to attend a
> CG meeting and present their points of opposition is a quite appropriate
> position to take. I've not been on the CG long, but I see no evidence so
> far that opposing thoughts would not be fully considered.
>
> Manu, I also firmly agree with your statement "that the work should not
> stop if they don't show."
>
> Stuart
>
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 12:25 PM, <msporny@digitalbazaar.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','msporny@digitalbazaar.com');>> wrote:
>
>> Thanks to Dave Longley for scribing this week! The minutes
>> for this week's Credentials CG telecon are now available:
>>
>> http://opencreds.org/minutes/2015-11-10/
>>
>> Full text of the discussion follows for W3C archival purposes.
>> Audio from the meeting is available as well (link provided below).
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>> Credentials Community Group Telecon Minutes for 2015-11-10
>>
>> Agenda:
>>
>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-credentials/2015Nov/0014.html
>> Topics:
>>   1. Credentials Task Force in WPIG Update
>>   2. Tasks for Credentials CG
>>   3. Linked Data Fast Track WG Update
>> Organizer:
>>   Manu Sporny
>> Scribe:
>>   Dave Longley
>> Present:
>>   Dave Longley, Manu Sporny, Henry Story, Laura Fowler, Rebecca
>>   Simmons, Brian Sletten, Gregg Kellogg, Nate Otto, Eric Korb, John
>>   Tibbetts, Chris Webber
>> Audio:
>>   http://opencreds.org/minutes/2015-11-10/audio.ogg
>>
>> Dave Longley is scribing.
>> Manu Sporny:  Last week we talked about what happened at W3C
>>   TPAC. The good news is that the Web Payments IG wants to do
>>   something around Credentials; we're trying to figure out where to
>>   do the work and where to write the charter and tie up loose ends.
>> Manu Sporny:  There's an action item on me to propose a way
>>   forward for Credentials at W3C. We made a proposal; it had mixed
>>   feedback. We'll discuss that. We'll also be assigning tasks to
>>   folks. We'll give an update on our discussion with the SoLiD team
>>   as well. We chatted a bit with TimBL on the HTTP signatures stuff
>>   as well.
>> Henry Story: Ah cool, interested about hearing the discussion on
>>   SoLiD
>> Manu Sporny:  Anything else we need to cover today?
>>
>> Topic: Credentials Task Force in WPIG Update
>>
>> Manu Sporny:
>>
>> https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Main_Page/ProposalsQ42015/Credentials
>> Manu Sporny:  We have made some modifications to the proposal as
>>   a result of the call yesterday. I'll review what was proposed and
>>   then talk next steps.
>> Manu Sporny:  The goal is to determine whether or not a W3C
>>   Working Group should be created. The outcome of this task force
>>   will either be a charter for the W3C member to vote on to start
>>   the work or it's going to be a finding that we should not do the
>>   work at W3C. Clearly, the people in this group would like to see
>>   it started at W3C. There are some other people who feel the world
>>   isn't ready to see this work start.
>> Manu Sporny:  A lot of the proposal is based on the survey we
>>   did. 58 orgs filled it out; how they view a proper credential
>>   ecosystem. We had them rate capabilities. We kept it data driven
>>   and so it was difficult for people who are against the work to
>>   argue against.
>> Manu Sporny:
>>
>> https://www..w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Main_Page/ProposalsQ42015/Credentials#Concerns
>> <https://www.w3.org/Payments/IG/wiki/Main_Page/ProposalsQ42015/Credentials#Concerns>
>> Manu Sporny:  There were a number of concerns that were raised.
>>   The concerns were added to the wiki.
>> Manu Sporny:  Some of those concerns are questions we need to
>>   answer. Some of them we are in no position to answer. "What is
>>   the jurisdictional scope of a credential and how are they
>>   regulated?" Way too early to answer but it was raised as a
>>   question to answer at some point.
>> Manu Sporny:  In general, the IG said "Yes, we should do
>>   something about this and this proposal isn't offbase." Only +1's
>>   to say we should proceed with the work. The pushback was where
>>   the work would happen.
>> Manu Sporny:  The proposal was that this group (this CG) would
>>   just shift gears and work on the questions.
>> Manu Sporny:  There was almost immediate objection to that.
>>   Because there are people (some of whom we know, and some of whom
>>   we don't know) that feel that we don't have a neutral forum here.
>>   Meaning, we've worked on technology like the Open Badges stuff,
>>   technical implementations have been discussed and because of
>>   that, this group isn't neutral.
>> Henry Story: Argh.
>> Manu Sporny:  A request was made for another group to be made
>>   that can't talk about the technology; and only talk about
>>   capabilities.
>> Manu Sporny:  Speaking as an individual, this is fantastically
>>   frustrating because we strive to be very neutral in this group
>>   and have a good track record of doing so. This group started out
>>   with use cases and no particular technology focus. We had two
>>   input specs. We didn't have a strong technical view, etc. we did
>>   discussions, found data, worked from there. There are people are
>>   saying (again, people we don't know who they are) that we aren't
>>   neutral and that they weren't involved. These people didn't join
>>   the work a year or so ago but now they are saying that their
>>   views weren't taken into account. We have identified a number of
>>   people that we *do* know and we've been talking with them and
>>   asking them to discuss things with us and that's great and is not
>>   an issue. The problem is the people who are only talking through
>>   W3C staff and we can't talk to them directly ... and the only
>>   solution seems to be creating a new group that is filled with the
>>   same people in this group, plus a few more, and that can't talk
>>   about technology solutions.
>> Manu Sporny:  Please provide your input ... do you support a new
>>   Community Group focused only on capabilities and writing, no
>>   tech, etc. We need to hear opinions from this group.
>> Henry Story:  If I look at the Linked Data Protocol group, which
>>   was headed by IBM. They had implementations, they had a lot of
>>   people, they had narrowed down the technology and the specifics
>>   and a proposal put forward. This seems suspicious to me; I don't
>>   know the process all that mutch, but it seems a bit weird.
>> Henry Story:  I'd like to speak with Arnaud and see what he said.
>>   I think you just need 20 members or some percentage to get people
>>   on board. The danger is if you get too many people on board then
>>   it's too general and becomes hard to succeed. That's me from an
>>   outsider's perspective.
>> Henry Story:  You have more understanding, Manu, of the politics.
>> Manu Sporny:  I think you're right in that it's strange. I think
>>   there's a fair degree of misunderstanding. There is a mismatch
>>   between what we're trying to do and what people think we're doing
>>   here. Let me try and draw where the various points of confusion
>>   are. I think there's a misunderstanding on what we're working on.
>>   Like we're working on authentication protocols like FIDO. We're
>>   absolutely not doing that here. The tech we're using here could
>>   be used with authentication but that's not what we're primarily
>>   pushing here.
>> Manu Sporny:  So there's confusion and objection over that.
>> Manu Sporny:  There's also confusion over where this group
>>   started. This group started with "we need to have verifiable
>>   claims/attributes" and we called them credentials and we were
>>   open to anyone to come and discuss at length.
>> Manu Sporny:  I think one problem is that there is some work
>>   going on at IETF that is similar; that group had already started
>>   and was already charted and once chartered they really push their
>>   world view. For example JOSE. There's nothing wrong with that
>>   there's a good technical implementation that fits their use
>>   cases. But their use cases aren't our use cases. And some people
>>   looked at this work and thought "nothing needs to be done." Now a
>>   year later, we have another group at W3C are backing doing work
>>   with Credentials. Now that other group is objecting because there
>>   would be two technical specs that conflict with one another.
>>   There are some things in common but I think the OpenID Connect,
>>   OAuth, IETF folks think there is more overlap than there is. For
>>   example, with the digital signature stuff, the JOSE folks are
>>   looking at that and saying "The Open Credentials folks are coming
>>   up with a new signature format" but they don't understand Linked
>>   Data; they aren't looking at the technology and they are just
>>   saying "We should just try to use their stuff before doing
>>   something new" without understanding that we already tried that..
>>   The mistake we made was not better documenting that effort.
>> Manu Sporny:  There are a couple of places where there is
>>   confusion: authentication vs. authorization, etc. and there are
>>   objections that our group is trying to do something that has been
>>   done before. There are people that don't understand the
>>   technology and some say we need to slow the process so people can
>>   understand that.
>> Henry Story: Yep makes sense
>> Manu Sporny:  I think those are the politics being played but I
>>   don't think any of it is mean spirited, I just think it's people
>>   who aren't familiar with the work we're trying to do and jumping
>>   to conclusions. And then those people talk to W3C staff and say
>>   "You are on the brink of doing work that's being done elsewhere"
>>   And W3C doesn't want to do that and says we need to document
>>   what's different.
>> Rebecca Simmons:  What you said makes sense, but as an outsider
>>   it's hard to say what needs to be done.
>> Henry Story: It would be itneresting to have a document to show
>>   how what you are doing goes beyond jose, for example.
>> Manu Sporny:  If we can answer all of the criticisms and make
>>   everyone happy then we can create a charter and go forward with
>>   the work.
>> Henry Story: I have some ideas, of how it goes beyond, but it is
>>   interesting to know it.
>> Brian Sletten: If we create a new CG, what's to stop them from
>>   throwing up obstacles to that CG?
>> Manu Sporny:  One primary question for this group: Do we want to
>>   push back and say "This CG you are proposing is the same thing
>>   we've already done. We'd rather have the people who are objecting
>>   make themselves known and join us and have the discussion in
>>   public." the other choice is "We'll create a new CG that doesn't
>>   talk technology at all and just talks capabilities and that group
>>   is going to go out and focus these people who are having issues
>>   and document their objections."
>> Manu Sporny:  Or there might be another option? Thoughts from the
>>   group?
>> Gregg Kellogg:  It seems clear that this is just a mechanism to
>>   push through their own agenda to overwhelm a new group. Even
>>   though technology discussions are off the table there I can see
>>   how it would be phrased to push one tech over another. It seems
>>   like a big scheme to me. I do think that the work we've done over
>>   the last year is exactly what a new group would do. I'd like to
>>   know what would be in front of a new CG that would be different
>>   that might then lead to a different outcome; otherwise it's a lot
>>   of wasted effort of a lot of people's time for no good reason
>>   other than to satisfy a powerful minority that seems frustrated.
>> Henry Story: That makes sense to try to find out what these
>>   people want.
>> Manu Sporny:  To go back to Henry's point, you only need 20-25
>>   member companies to say this work should start; but that is only
>>   after getting W3C Management approval. They have to agree there
>>   is consensus around what to work on. Right now ... I thought it
>>   was there, positive feedback from CEO and some staff contacts,
>>   but the person in charge of making the decision is unconvinced.
>>   We want to reach out to that person to find out what would
>>   convince them. I believe it's down to one person that is holding
>>   the process up.
>> Manu Sporny:  I think the general point that the W3C staff
>>   members in the IG were making was that, "yes, we realize that
>>   this is somewhat annoying, but you need to create a neutral
>>   playing field. If a group of people are saying there isn't a
>>   neutral field, you need to create one so they'll come in." One
>>   proposal is to create a new CG with the same calls and time as
>>   this one (just replace it) but tightly focus that group around
>>   the creation of a charter and answering the questions around what
>>   needs to be done.
>> Manu Sporny:  So there are maybe 8 people, at most, that we need
>>   to interview. We can say it has to be on the record and public on
>>   what needs to be done. Once we get all those interviews out of
>>   the way, we will clear those interviews with the W3C staff who
>>   are saying people are objecting; we'll get a list from them and
>>   interview those people, clearly document those concerns, etc. and
>>   then hope that the argument that those people feel they aren't
>>   being heard is addressed.
>> Manu Sporny:  The other approach is that we have way more than 20
>>   orgs that want to start this work.
>> Manu Sporny:  We could, instead, and say "If you want something
>>   else done, you have to propose something. Everyone can't just
>>   stop because someone feels there's some nebulous better solution
>>   out there... if you feel it's out there, propose it so the group
>>   can talk about it."
>> Dave Longley:  It would be an option to invite them to this
>>   group. I know they don't think this group is a natural fit. We're
>>   going to bring together the same group of people w/ other people.
>>   Could we invite them specifically? [scribe assist by Manu Sporny]
>> Dave Longley:  Make it a more formal invitation to those that
>>   have concerns - we want them to talk about concerns - we want
>>   this to be a neutral group. [scribe assist by Manu Sporny]
>> Manu Sporny:  I proposed that and they said "It doesn't matter,
>>   they don't think you have a neutral group so they won't
>>   participate."
>> Manu Sporny:  So we could say "ok, fine, people seem to think
>>   this isn't a neutral group, so let's just create a new group.."
>>   But we'd have all the same people like you said, with a new group
>>   name. We'd just be going through new mailing list and set up and
>>   all that.
>> Manu Sporny:  I believe that the W3C staff wants to hear from the
>>   rest of this group. If they don't hear from the rest of the
>>   people in this CG, and no one else speaks up, their counter
>>   argument is going to be that it's just Digital Bazaar's opinion,
>>   not the groups.
>> Manu Sporny:  Gregg and Henry spoke up but we need more people to
>>   voice their opinions on where they want this group to go.
>> Manu Sporny:  If we say people can just join this group the
>>   counter argument will be that they won't join because it's not a
>>   neutral group. If we have people in this group clearly saying we
>>   should either "Create a new group" or "No, same people would
>>   join."
>> Nate Otto: Without all the context, I think creating a new group
>>   would be more work for uncertain gains.
>> Brian Sletten:  If we create a new group and they don't come ...
>>   procedurally what is our response? At some point they are just
>>   doing a denial of service attack.
>> Eric Korb: Why is the onus on us to do this work? How do we
>>   substantiate their claims?
>> Manu Sporny:  Procedurally, we'd have to write a new charter, get
>>   approval of the charter, create the group via W3C CG process,
>>   create new mailing list, new IRC channel, etc. About a week. Once
>>   we do all that it would be all of us on the call again, but
>>   hopefully 4-5 more people.
>> Brian Sletten:  If they still don't show up, what then?
>> Manu Sporny:  It helps if we can say there are some folks in the
>>   group that believe this won't help.
>> Brian Sletten:  At some point you need to be out in the open, you
>>   can't just hide behind anonymity and try to stop work that other
>>   people are working on.
>> John Tibbetts:  We've done a lot of homework over the last few
>>   years and months, including the survey. It's time to start
>>   talking about the technology issues. Talking about the technology
>>   helps you think about the problem; it's time to be doing that. I
>>   think we need to push back on that.
>> John Tibbetts:  We need to get on with it.
>> Eric Korb: So, lets object to their work!
>> Manu Sporny:  Eric asks "How do we substantiate their claims?"
>>   This is asymmetric. We do a lot of work to answer a concern and
>>   then there's an objection that says "No you didn't cover this
>>   other thing." This is coming from someone who cares about
>>   privacy/security, which is good, but they don't have a company
>>   that depends on the tech, they aren't going to deploy it, etc --
>>   lower priority. One of the problems with that is that we went out
>>   and documented a bunch of the stuff we've been saying here in
>>   this group and doing an enormous amount of work which has moved
>>   things forward a bit, but not far enough. The onus is on us
>>   because we want to do something; all anyone else has to do is
>>   just object. One reason the onus has continued to be on us is
>>   because we've been very receptive to questions and concerns of
>>   people outside this group. It is getting to the point where we're
>>   wondering when we've done enough work.
>> Manu Sporny:  Eric, we can't object to their work because some of
>>   them aren't doing any, and others of them aren't working on the
>>   problems we're working on. They are just objecting to our work
>>   because they think we're working on the same stuff, but we're
>>   not.
>> Nate Otto: I have found this group to have some members who have
>>   clear ideas about a technical direction to proceed in, but that
>>   those people are very open to making sure that we are building
>>   the right technology and formulating our use cases properly. We
>>   hope this effort moves forward. (Nate Otto, Director, Badge
>>   Alliance)
>> Eric Korb: Manu, thx
>> Manu Sporny:  The only work out there to "object" to would be
>>   things like OpenID Connect/OAuth/SAML/etc, but we don't even
>>   necessarily object to those technologies, some of them may work
>>   for their use cases, etc -- this again has to do with the
>>   misunderstandings. SAML and OpenID Connect doesn't work for our
>>   use cases, and that's the issue. There is work we're doing like
>>   the expression of a digital credential, there is no work out
>>   there that is as extensive as we've done. There are things like
>>   "here's how you can express an email address or a name" but
>>   there's no work about cryptographically verifiable claims like
>>   education credentials, doctor's licenses, where people work, etc..
>>   That is being proposed/created by this group.
>> Chris Webber: So I'll speak up mainly so that I am on the record.
>>   For me, this work is very important because in order to really
>>   see federation succeed, I think we need to have clear
>>   authorization systems and methods of verifying that communication
>>   has come from one place to another.  We've already seen this in
>>   the ActivityPump spec, where we are basically forced to keep
>>   record of conversation forever in order so that clients can
>>   verify its source.
>> Chris Webber: This is bad if you are concerned with privacy.
>> Henry Story: Though you need to be careful about authorization.
>> Eric Korb: +1 Nate
>> Chris Webber: Right
>> Chris Webber: Authentication and credentials are one of the
>>   notoriously hardest parts to get working right in federated
>>   systems.  I have a lot of confidence in the members of this group
>>   to think things through well.
>> Manu Sporny:  So I'm going to play devil's advocate here; W3C
>>   staff would channel these other people and say "Yes, but, you
>>   need a clear set of use cases and you need buy in around that set
>>   of use cases and you need to talk about capabilities before you
>>   talking about specs or anything of that nature."
>> Manu Sporny:  I can take the minutes from today and push back.
>>   The group can say "We'd like to just do the interviews in the
>>   group and talk about it with them."
>> Manu Sporny:  It seems like there is consensus around the group
>>   that "creating a new CG wouldn't address the issues". People feel
>>   that they aren't being heard so let's bring them in and listen to
>>   them and write down those concerns... and maybe from that we can
>>   figure out if people think they are being heard or if we need a
>>   new group."
>> Eric Korb: +1 Chris
>> Manu Sporny:  I think we have high attendance in these calls
>>   because we've really tried to be open and transparent.
>> Dave Longley:  I second the notion to figure out if the group is
>>   neutral - why don't people come to the group and receive their
>>   concerns - why don't we just try that instead of assuming this
>>   group is not neutral. They should come and try out the group -
>>   that hasn't even happened yet. The people that have these
>>   concerns haven't even come to the group to try it out. Let's give
>>   it a shot. If a new group needs to be created, so be it. [scribe
>>   assist by Manu Sporny]
>> Dave Longley:  I would expect that we'd give them a warm welcome
>>   and address their concerns. [scribe assist by Manu Sporny]
>> Eric Korb: +1 Dlongley
>> Henry Story: +1 I agree. I am new to the group, and it feels very
>>   friendly here.
>> Manu Sporny:  So I think consensus is that we should invite
>>   people who have concerns and we can spend 30 mins to 1 hour with
>>   them and clearly document their concerns and how they'd like to
>>   proceed. Once we've done that, we could talk to them and ask if
>>   they feel that they are being listened to.
>> Chris Webber: Yes, I've experienced a lot of patience and
>>   thoughtful consideration with my questions here :)
>> Manu Sporny:  Then we can see where we are at that point. So
>>   let's not start a new group and instead invite people here and
>>   see what they have to say and we'll document and circle back
>>   around and see if they feel heard. If they are, there's no need
>>   to create a new group.
>> John Tibbetts: I support the work in this group because it takes
>>   a higher-level semantic viewpoint for web security; that is, a
>>   concept of credential, rather than just focussing on the
>>   lower-level flows and protocols...This is what we need for the
>>   more semantically rich credentials to support something like an
>>   electronic transcript.  John Tibbetts, IMS Global Chief Product
>>   Architect.
>> Dave Longley:  +1 To that proposal
>> Henry Story: And I think the other is to speak about the size of
>>   the members support
>> Brian Sletten:  I think the other part of the response would be
>>   to just find out what the exact objections are that are keeping
>>   us from moving forward. If they don't act in good faith, what is
>>   our recourse?
>> Henry Story: ( I don't actually know how big the support is being
>>   new to this group )
>> Manu Sporny:  Yes, to get that before we proceed. We want it to
>>   be clear to us that we aren't wasting our time and so it's clear
>>   to the others what is happening if they don't participate in the
>>   discussion.
>> Manu Sporny:  Eric, if they dont' show, we need to clearly
>>   negotiate what happens in that case. I'm going to strongly assert
>>   that the work should not stop if they don't show. We've got a
>>   number of people around the table that want the work to proceed;
>>   we don't want it held hostage by people who won't discuss.
>> Eric Korb: As CEO of Accreditrust, I echo Nate Otto's comments,
>>   "I have found this group to have some members who have clear
>>   ideas about a technical direction to proceed in, but that those
>>   people are very open to making sure that we are building the
>>   right technology and formulating our use cases properly."
>> Manu Sporny:  There's already enough member support to approve a
>>   charter and the hope is that it's growing.
>> Manu Sporny:  We have 44 organizations saying "Yes, we want this
>>   problem solved", 17 of them are W3C members, 7 of them are
>>   non-members that would join, and 16 of them are sitting on the
>>   fence.
>> Eric Korb: I also support the opinions of JohnTib, "I support the
>>   work in this group because it takes a higher-level semantic
>>   viewpoint for web security; that is, a concept of credential,
>>   rather than just focussing on the lower-level flows and
>>   protocols...This is what we need for the more semantically rich
>>   credentials to support something like an electronic transcript."
>> Manu Sporny:  I'm going to take what has been said in the call
>>   today back to W3C staff. Say that the group would like to start
>>   by interviewing all these folks that have not been necessarily
>>   supportive/critical of the work, etc and get all their thoughts
>>   down. And that specifically that we feel that creating a new
>>   group is unnecessary; that this is an open forum. People and
>>   their orgs can come in and we can document their concerns.
>>
>> Topic: Tasks for Credentials CG
>>
>> Manu Sporny: https://github.com/opencreds/website/issues/14
>> Manu Sporny:  The more people we have on these tasks and the
>>   faster we can get the list done the faster we can get to a
>>   charter for a WG. A lot of this is documentation work. We need to
>>   explain our thinking around each one of these items. Will anyone
>>   volunteer for what's on that list?
>> Brian Sletten:  What's the time frame?
>> Nate Otto: I can put some time in... looking
>> Manu Sporny:  ASAP. If we can get it all done in 4 months, we can
>>   potentially get a group started then. If it's 8 months, it's that
>>   long.
>> Henry Story: My guess is that January would be the fastest any
>>   work can be done.
>> Manu Sporny:  If you say, for example, say you sign up for
>>   "Create a comparison between Identity Credentials and OpenID
>>   Connect" then you'd write a paper/blog post on that.
>> Brian Sletten:  I'll commit to a couple of them.
>> Nate Otto: I can do one or two of the comparison blog posts at
>>   least.
>> Manu Sporny:  Just tell me offline what you're signing up for and
>>   I'll put your name beside it.
>> Henry Story: I am still too new to this work, but I'll be
>>   interested to review
>> Eric Korb: I updated doc
>> Nate Otto:  I can do both SAML and OpenID Connect.
>>
>> Topic: Linked Data Fast Track WG Update
>>
>> Manu Sporny:  We demo'd the credentials work to Sir Tim Berners
>>   Lee's team at MIT. I know Henry is involved with that team as
>>   well. There is consensus to coordinate on RDF Dataset
>>   Normalization and Linked Data Signatures. I had a fairly in depth
>>   conversation with Tim about that. Right now there is a fast track
>>   proposal for the RDF Dataset Normalization work. We will work on
>>   a charter and still need 20 votes, but believe we can do it.
>>   There's no one pushing back, it's just a matter of writing the
>>   charter, get feedback, and then put in front of W3C staff and
>>   then membership for a vote.
>> Manu Sporny:  Any other concerns/comments on the direction we're
>>   taking over the next week or so?
>> Henry Story: Is that Linked Data Fast Track _Platform_ or  just
>>   Linked Data Fast Track?
>> None
>> Manu Sporny: Henry, it's really "Specification Fast Track" - one
>>   of the first specs might be the RDF Dataset Normalization spec.
>> Henry Story: What is the Fast track thing? Is it to do with LDP
>>   or with Linked Data?
>> Henry Story: Ah cool
>> Manu Sporny: It's to do w/ general W3C process. A number of the
>>   member companies at W3C TPAC this year were trying to figure out
>>   a way to get a spec to REC faster than the 4+ year process it
>>   takes.
>> Manu Sporny: JSON-LD made it through in 2 years.
>> Manu Sporny: I think they're trying to speed it up to 1 year now.
>> Henry Story: Btw. does your normalisation algorithm allow me to
>>   normalise rdf to disk, so as to minimize differences when someone
>>   edits a file?
>> Manu Sporny: The idea is that you start at CR (if you have a
>>   fully baked spec, at least two implementations, and a test suite)
>> Henry Story: Nice
>> Henry Story: And here they want to do PATCH too?
>> Manu Sporny: The normalization algorithm that dlongley created
>>   does enable you to normalize RDF to disk
>> Manu Sporny: PATCH may be in a different fast track group
>> Manu Sporny: We're trying to focus on something that has an
>>   almost guaranteed chance of success.
>> Henry Story: Yes. makes sense.
>> Manu Sporny: There are some that are saying that LD Patch isn't
>>   ready
>> Manu Sporny: I don't think anyone is saying RDF Dataset
>>   Normalization isn't ready.
>> Manu Sporny: We're just trying to reduce the number of variables
>>   that might create failure.
>> Henry Story: ( I can imagine that it can be complex as new
>>   mathematical algorithms come out )
>> Manu Sporny: There are improvements that could be made (for
>>   example, memory consumption w/ large bnode graphs), but we have
>>   to cut version 1.0 at some point.
>> Manu Sporny: And the solutions that the algorithm creates aren't
>>   wrong, we just need to seek if we have consensus since a
>>   standardized solution doesn't exist right now.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

-- 
Alexander Jackl
CEO & President, Bardic Systems, Inc.
alex@bardicsystems.com
P: 401.384.0566
F: 617.812.6020
http://bardicsystems.com