- From: Dan Yamamoto <dan@iij.ad.jp>
- Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2023 22:09:09 +0900
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Cc: Phil Archer <phil.archer@gs1.org>, Sebastian Crane <seabass-labrax@gmx.com>, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>, RDF Dataset Canonicalization and Hash Working Group <public-rch-wg@w3.org>
I also probably share the same opinion with Ivan. Since RDFC-1.0 isn't always used alongside Data Integrity, I thought it would be better for it to have some precise algorithm identifier on its own. Dan On 2023/09/19 0:49, Ivan Herman wrote: > > >> On 18 Sep 2023, at 17:26, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 11:15 AM Phil Archer <phil.archer@gs1.org> wrote: >>> From: Dan Yamamoto <dan@iij.ad.jp> >>> Therefore, I believe the internal hash function should be >>> interchangeable. However, as others have suggested, I think there is >>> a need to introduce a mechanism to specify what hash function is used >>> explicitly. >> >> Just to jump in quickly on this thread; it feels like the harms are >> being exaggerated given the way we know that RDFC-1.0 is used today. >> If we look at how the VC Data Integrity specifications use the >> algorithm, you /always/ know which internal hash algorithm was used >> (or should be used) because it's signalled to you via the Data >> Integrity algorithm identifier. You don't have to guess, you are told >> exactly which internal hash algorithm to use. >> >> I wonder if folks are missing this detail? It was always expected that >> the internal hash information would be signalled to the caller, and >> that's exactly what Data Integrity does. Perhaps all we need to do in >> the spec is ensure that one of the outputs is the internal hash >> function used and to tell spec writers that use RDFC-1.0 that any >> algorithm that uses it needs to clearly stipulate which internal >> algorithm to use when calling the algorithm (and if not, the default >> will be used)? >> > > I do not think the issue is with spec writers. RDFC-1.0 is meant for any > lambda users of Linked Data, not only for spec writers. While what you > say is o.k., what we need is a way to convey the information of what > hash function was used when we provide the hash of a specific graph, > because that hash may travel from one lambda user to the other. > > Ivan > > > >> This feels more like a miscommunication than a design issue. Does the >> above help clarify? >> >> -- manu >> >> -- >> Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/ >> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. >> https://www.digitalbazaar.com/ >> > > > ---- > Ivan Herman, W3C > Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ > mobile: +33 6 52 46 00 43 > > -- Dan Yamamoto <dan@iij.ad.jp> Internet Initiative Japan Inc.
Received on Tuesday, 19 September 2023 13:09:39 UTC