- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Mon, 24 May 2021 10:36:56 -0400
- To: semantic-web@w3.org
Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > I would greatly appreciate a discussion of the possible flaws in that > document. This discussion does not appear to be happening, which I find > worrisome. Ok, then let's have this discussion, even if it takes weeks or months to come to any sort of conclusion. I don't want any accusation that we didn't discuss these things (even though variations of these discussions have happened in other forums over the years). I will assert that these sorts of discussions should happen in a W3C WG; as that's the purpose of a W3C WG. That they're happening w/o involving the other communities that have been using these specifications and technologies is problematic. Before we have this discussion, however, I'd like to understand what a resolution to the discussion would look like to you, Peter, Melvin, and Dan. Specifically, if we note any issues that are of concern for Linked Data Proofs in the document as issues (using language that you draft), and it's clear that there is a path forward (or the feature could be dropped without endangering the entire specification) would you be willing to move forward with the document as an *input* to the WG? -- manu -- Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/ Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. blog: Veres One Decentralized Identifier Blockchain Launches https://tinyurl.com/veres-one-launches
Received on Monday, 24 May 2021 14:37:13 UTC