W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-blockchain@w3.org > September 2016

Re: Chainpoint

From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2016 14:44:34 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKaEYhLnGSR6wBnfXt8jmdCX2rHTRwuEHnpmW5WyAEmg0edV8Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adán Sánchez de Pedro Crespo <adan@stampery.co>
Cc: Blockchain CG <public-blockchain@w3.org>
On 8 September 2016 at 19:28, Adán Sánchez de Pedro Crespo <adan@stampery.co
> wrote:

> Hi everyone,
> I'm Adán, the CTO of Stampery.
> Sadly enough, I didn't get Webex to work properly for today's meeting so
> eventually couldn't join the conversation.
> At Stampery we have been working on blockchain data anchoring for two
> years, so we are specially interested on the Chainpoint discussion.
> Our scalable timestamping technology called BTA [1] uses its own format
> for blockchain proofs/receipts, but for the sake of the maturity of the
> blockchain industry, we want to push hard for stablishing an open
> standard. We dream of a day when the proofs generated by different
> blockchain timestamping platforms can be verified with a single piece of
> software.
> We are in conversations with the guys from Tierion because we believe
> that Chainpoint would make a good starting point for beginning to work
> on such standard.  We particularly like the idea of using JSON-LD for
> defining the ontology of the proofs.
> Ideally, all the members of this CG should be able to participate in the
> standard drafting process and come out in the next months with a
> standard format that all the parties involved will feel comfortable with.
> This CG, specially when promoted to official Working Group, should be
> also responsible for discussing and defining the "vocabulary" used by
> the standard schema between major upgrades. This is of vital importance
> because we can't update the standard every time a new blockchain,
> hashing algorithm or data anchoring technique makes an appearance; yet
> the acceptable values for the different fields in the JSON-LD schema
> need to be promptly updated and published when required (otherwise, new
> players won't be able to embrace and abide by the standard in good
> standing).
> I really expect this discussion to move forward and the standard to
> happen. You have Stampery's full support. There are many other things in
> the blockchain space that need to be standardized, but I really believe
> this could be a great point to start from.

+1 to using (JSON) LD.  I use turtle but it should be 100% interchangable.

What are you looking for in a block chain vocabulary?

I've done some work on this here:


> Links:
> [1]  "Blockchain Timestamping Architecture" Whitepaper:
> https://s3.amazonaws.com/stampery-cdn/docs/Stampery-BTA-v5-whitepaper.pdf
> Best regards,
> --
> *Adán Sánchez de Pedro Crespo*
> CTO, Stampery Inc.
> San Francisco - Madrid
> T: +34 663 163 375
Received on Friday, 9 September 2016 12:45:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:08:26 UTC