Should multiformats refer to URDNA or URDCA?
gobengo opened this issue · comments
there is a PR that contributed a reference to some of this in multiformats/multicodec
the pr title says 'urdna' but the pr added the name using 'urdca'. Which is more... canonical.... normal.... whatever. What should we put it in the multicodec name column? :)
I imagine this decision has editorial implications for the spec itself? It still says 'urdna2015' quite a bit and does not contain 'urdca'. So why should multibase say 'urdca'?
Relates to:
There is a debate raging over what we should call it. Traditionally, we used "n" to mean "normalization"... but it's generally accepted now that we should've said "canonicalization" since it's a more accurate description of what's happening. Thus, the "urdca" vs. "urdna" distinction. This is currently being discussed in the W3C RDF Dataset, Canonicalization, and Hashing Working Group (note that we didn't call it the "normalization" working group).
Is this issue appropriate here on rdf-canon, or in another issue tracker?
Group resolution 2023-06-07. The name is RDFC-1.0
Closed via #116.