W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > May 2017

Re: Progress on Linked Data Signatures from IETF 98

From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Date: Mon, 8 May 2017 16:23:32 +0200
Message-Id: <BF27CD7A-4E71-4F89-8C50-8C246415074E@bblfish.net>
Cc: Anders Rundgren <anders.rundgren.net@gmail.com>, Adrian Hope-Bailie <adrian@hopebailie.com>, "Stone, Matt" <matt.stone@pearson.com>, Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>

> On 8 May 2017, at 15:47, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:
> The downside for pure JSON-based canonicalization is what it has always
> been: the signatures only work for JSON; they're not syntax agnostic.
> All of our current signatures for Verifiable Claims ARE syntax agnostic,
> which provides a certain level of future proofing when JSON goes out of
> style. For example, I'm hearing that CBOR is the new hot thing and that
> JSON's days are numbered. :)

Is it not also that you have to keep the signed document around too, whereas in graph signature you
can store your graph in your database (Eg. a quad store) with the signature and ignore dismiss
the serialization, meaning you'd end up saving a lot of space. 

Received on Monday, 8 May 2017 14:24:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 July 2018 21:19:37 UTC