Re: blockchain and linked data questions

> On 10 Jan 2016, at 01:22, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> I did the data modeling already.  Not the DHT tho.
> 
> https://w3id.org/cc <https://w3id.org/cc>
> 
> My current line of thinking is around private block chains (with a slight twist) ... more soon!

Nice. 

The ontology looks very much like a first draft though. None of the relations have
domains or ranges specified in RDFS. And there is no link to documentation from 
the various blockchain protocols to allow one to verify the design decisions. For 
something like this it actually looks like OWL modelling would be quite important,
 to verify that the model was consistent and did not contain contradictions, and to 
make sure it was used consistentlty.

It also looks like what is missing is a peer reviewed paper that would go with this. 

Btw. I wonder if one could not use the ontologies from the web payments group
https://web-payments.org/ <https://web-payments.org/>  such as digital signatures 
https://web-payments.org/vocabs/signature <https://web-payments.org/vocabs/signature>

Anyway, something like this if peer reviewed could help bring a lot of clarity
to what the block chain is, as it would make the logical side of the block chain 
explicit. So it looks like this is actually an (interesting) research topic.

> except it's less compact. 


Would it still be (much) less compact if one used a binary RDF notation?
I am not sure what the latest on this is, but I found the following:

http://www.w3.org/Submission/2011/03/ <http://www.w3.org/Submission/2011/03/>
http://www.rdfhdt.org/what-is-hdt/ <http://www.rdfhdt.org/what-is-hdt/>

>  [...]


This of course still leaves open the question which of the new types
of protocols should be used, given the movement in this space as
indicated by Toni Arcieri's blog post
 https://tonyarcieri.com/the-death-of-bitcoin <https://tonyarcieri.com/the-death-of-bitcoin>

As I understand the word "chain" in blockchain is quite important. Each element is
linked to the previous one and the chain of signatures has to be verified. So if someone
transferrred money from A to B, one would need to find the previous state of A's account
by going from the head of the block chain to the previous state of his account. I guess this
is the reason why folks need to have the whole blockchain available to them.

But then there is work going on that also does not require this level of consistency. So
there is research to be done in mapping out the space between the blockchain and simple
document signatures, and explaining when what should be used.

Btw, does anyone know if there is there a group in Europe that is already researching 
this space?

Great brainstorming.

Henry