Re: U-Prove

Hi Phil,

Whilst I think privacy --> dignity (incorporating privacy as an attribute)
I have been particularly disappointed by the lack of focus on dignity
related works herein.  I think it's grown from a great beginning, but I
have modern concerns. I do not believe I'd be alone with such concerns.

I quickly skimmed one of the specification pdfs but couldn't see any
reference to linked-data / rdf.

Another frustration I have is what seems to be a battle between n3/ttl vs.
json-ld; and it makes sense to me to ensure support for both / either forms
of linked-data which is important for any decentralised future (noting the
rather sophisticated "choice of Law" provisions used by Microsoft
worldwide, particularly by comparison to its competitors).

It would be good to see some examples of use with something along the lines
of SoLiD[1] or indeed simply openbadges.

Will look into it more. Good to know this work exists.  Linked-data support
is essential imnsho.  Yet how that works within a broader lifecycle, I'm
not so sure.

People carry/own their birth certificates, yet their used on an as needed
basis.

Tim.h.

[1] GitHub.Com/SoLiD

On Fri., 30 Dec. 2016, 9:43 pm Phil Archer, <phila@w3.org> wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> Can I ask this group for a view on U-Prove [1] please? In particular,
> the privacy aspects that appear to be superior to the architecture
> proposed for the VCWG. The issue boils down to trackability.
>
> Thanks
>
> Phil
>
> [1] https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/project/u-prove/
>
> --
>
>
> Phil Archer
> Data Strategist, W3C
> http://www.w3.org/
>
> http://philarcher.org
> +44 (0)7887 767755
> @philarcher1
>
>