Re: looking for help with/guidance for a schema.org proposal

NTP servers as run by NIST tend to be very reliable, and trustworthy with
multiple servers that can be called to verify time at observation, or
verification of time sync on a local RTC (we regularly are dealing with IoT
devices that may be offline or inaccessible for periods of time that still
need to reliably report timestamped observations).  Additionally, NIST
provides an authenticated service so that time can be reliably and securely
verified to a relay box (this is typically pinned by IP) that could act as
a trusted party for RFC3161 with the use of some hashing/signing mechanism
should that be required.  See this for more details:
https://www.nist.gov/pml/time-and-frequency-division/time-services/nist-authenticated-ntp-service

There are some other approaches here, but for areas where "accurate" time
is required (~50ms or better, depending on network latency), the NIST
approach has worked well.  <50ms accuracy requires other approaches to get
verified time.

There is some good discussion on accurate time as required by CKMS systems
in SP800-130
https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.800-130.pdf
And in SP800-102
https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/SP/nistspecialpublication800-102.pdf
While those two docs are a bit older, they provide a very thorough overview
of secure and trusted systems that also require trusted timestamps

Mike Prorock
CTO, Founder
https://mesur.io/



On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 8:03 AM Kostas Karasavvas <kkarasavvas@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Superficially:
>
> RFC3161 requires trust to the entity behind the timestamping service  (not
> that important for many use cases) while blockchain timestamping is
> trustless (depending on use case/implementation).
>
> Blockchain network integrity determines security of the timestamp.
> Arguably, a lot of blockchain networks are not good enough.  Extra secure
> networks, like the Bitcoin network, can guarantee a timestamp of +-30mins
> and not an exact one since miners have some control over the timestamp.
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 6:47 PM Adrian Gropper <agropper@healthurl.com>
> wrote:
>
>> What’s the relationship between RFC3161 and OpenTimestamps or other
>> blockchain timestamp schemes ;-) ?
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 10:44 AM Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "Yes, and that is, IMO, its biggest fail..."
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm sorry you feel this way about it. Personally I think it's very
>>> useful as an intermediate between publishers, more formal environments and
>>> consumers of such data. Having schema.org be the one true center of all
>>> would IMO be presumptuous to say the least while also trampling on work
>>> done by others. Clearly there's always going to be some unfortunate
>>> overlap, though a lot of issues for consuming parties that come from this
>>> often (not always of course) can be resolved through some mapping of terms.
>>> At the same time I also feel it plays a very nice role in getting
>>> publishers (like myself) familiar with structured data and the fact there
>>> actually exist other (more formal) methods of annotating data (which, for
>>> example, in many cases I'd never have known existed).
>>>
>>> Anyways, each person clearly has the right have his own opinion about
>>> it, nevertheless I think it's of the utmost importance that what
>>> schema.org tries to accomplish doesn't get in the way of more
>>> formal/expressive standards, hence reaching out to people in this group to
>>> try to prevent our proposal does exactly that.
>>>
>>> Thanks for the additional comments and I'll definitely look into RFC
>>> 3161 timestamps and AdES-based signatures as well (seems I got plenty of
>>> rabbit holes to dive into).
>>>
>>> Op vr 6 nov. 2020 om 15:39 schreef Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com
>>> >:
>>>
>>>> The ISCC is just a (potentially long) string – so you can store it in
>>>> your JSON any way that you would like.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > Schema.org is a vocabulary with as few constraints as possible
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> Yes, and that is, IMO, its biggest fail.  The lack of actual Schemas –
>>>> made even more ludicrous by its name – makes its use in formal metadata
>>>> environment difficult.   In the case of CAI, we did two things.  (1) We
>>>> defined formal (JSON) schemas for some key schema.org  grammars such
>>>> as `Place`, `GeoCoordinates` and `ClaimReview` and then (2) we enabled
>>>> support for using any arbitrary Schema.org grammar.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> For timestamping, CAI uses standard RFC 3161 timestamps.  Not only it
>>>> is a well understand and deployed solution, but it also aligns with our
>>>> standard AdES-based signatures for compliance with ISO and ETSI standards
>>>> and the legal requirements of the EU, Japan and other countries.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Leonard
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From: *Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com>
>>>> *Date: *Friday, November 6, 2020 at 8:20 AM
>>>> *To: *"public-credentials@w3.org" <public-credentials@w3.org>
>>>> *Cc: *"public-credentials@w3.org" <public-credentials@w3.org>
>>>> *Subject: *Re: looking for help with/guidance for a schema.org proposal
>>>> *Resent-From: *<public-credentials@w3.org>
>>>> *Resent-Date: *Friday, November 6, 2020 at 8:18 AM
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> @Leonard and @Tzviya, are there any resources that show examples of
>>>> ISCC metadata in JSON so I can compare these with the different examples
>>>> we created for our proposal?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> @Leonard, happen to have a resource showing examples of how the CAI
>>>> aligns with schema.org
>>>> <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fschema.org%2F&data=04%7C01%7Clrosenth%40adobe.com%7C22cd3c6aa01c41a3160108d88256ae03%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C1%7C637402656092991697%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=Ci5AYsHapNcLbrqL4ZHmTHiVBSBoC%2FUp7ij%2FOHiMAOU%3D&reserved=0>
>>>> ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Schema.org is a vocabulary with as few constraints as possible so that
>>>> publishers are free to describe the things they want. It's up to each
>>>> individual consumer of schema.org
>>>> <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fschema.org%2F&data=04%7C01%7Clrosenth%40adobe.com%7C22cd3c6aa01c41a3160108d88256ae03%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C1%7C637402656092991697%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=Ci5AYsHapNcLbrqL4ZHmTHiVBSBoC%2FUp7ij%2FOHiMAOU%3D&reserved=0> annotated
>>>> markup (e.g. search engines, social media platforms) to decide for
>>>> themselves which elements of the vocabulary they need/support for their
>>>> applications, as well as for describing any constraints in regards to the
>>>> data shapes and values they want from publishers.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And so the intent behind our schema.org
>>>> <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fschema.org%2F&data=04%7C01%7Clrosenth%40adobe.com%7C22cd3c6aa01c41a3160108d88256ae03%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C1%7C637402656093001690%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=dceLN6%2FQnyC54BvgbNQzvZ4mwqnqRIoSmcXZbtO8SRU%3D&reserved=0> proposal
>>>> is to be agnostic in regards to the identifiers (or any other value) that
>>>> can be used/expressed (and any infrastructure/service used to generate
>>>> these). Thus we're trying to come up with a schema.org
>>>> <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fschema.org%2F&data=04%7C01%7Clrosenth%40adobe.com%7C22cd3c6aa01c41a3160108d88256ae03%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C1%7C637402656093001690%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=dceLN6%2FQnyC54BvgbNQzvZ4mwqnqRIoSmcXZbtO8SRU%3D&reserved=0> method
>>>> for describing timestamps (and the elements needed for these) that doesn't
>>>> conflict with any major draft/proposal/standard out there yet has enough
>>>> expressivity to 'point the way' to validators to be able to get the info
>>>> they need (possibly elsewhere) and do their thing via their preferred
>>>> methods.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Practically this means that ids for DID, BLINK, ISCC and others - even
>>>> though not incorporated in the examples I provided - could be expressed as
>>>> an URN via JSON-LD's @id (or at least, that's how we think about it), e.g.
>>>>
>>>> {
>>>>
>>>>   "@context":"https://schema.org
>>>> <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fschema.org%2F&data=04%7C01%7Clrosenth%40adobe.com%7C22cd3c6aa01c41a3160108d88256ae03%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637402656093011686%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=hcUwoUx4SLBEqbkvIN%2BpjnvJbehh%2BUxlr5IVJa51Zk0%3D&reserved=0>
>>>> ",
>>>>
>>>>   "@type":"BlockchainTransaction",
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "@id":"blink:ethereum:ropsten:0xafdcf0708ab37df3eef706ea0c1b985a8fa10b11607fe1c0558022b51f450635"
>>>>
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which is why I'd love to have the examples I asked for (if there are
>>>> any) so I can try to find out if our proposal contains anything that might
>>>> cause any conflict (and possibly ask help if I fail in doing so myself).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> @Detlef, I'll take a look at the resources you provided. Thanks for
>>>> pointing out long-term-preservation as well. To be honest it's not
>>>> something we had discussed yet though it's something I'll definitely
>>>> discuss with the others (we've taken the baby-steps approach to prevent our
>>>> proposal being too granular from the start).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Op do 5 nov. 2020 om 15:25 schreef <detlef.huehnlein@ecsec.de>:
>>>>
>>>> Dear Jarno,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would like to encourage you to look at RFC 4998
>>>> <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftools.ietf.org%2Fhtml%2Frfc4998&data=04%7C01%7Clrosenth%40adobe.com%7C22cd3c6aa01c41a3160108d88256ae03%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C1%7C637402656093011686%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=O9C4tvxDHu8CwUu2f7J03Oe6rdiZfkuPceeMIaIYsxc%3D&reserved=0>
>>>> for the use of
>>>>
>>>> Merkle Trees for efficient time stamping (and long-term preservation of
>>>> evidence
>>>>
>>>> as addressed in ETSI TS 119 512
>>>> <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.etsi.org%2Fdeliver%2Fetsi_ts%2F119500_119599%2F119512%2F01.01.01_60%2Fts_119512v010101p.pdf&data=04%7C01%7Clrosenth%40adobe.com%7C22cd3c6aa01c41a3160108d88256ae03%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C1%7C637402656093021684%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=cMayR6RKvH2%2FKh1llC2B%2FVc8hYqb%2FGZp6e6eJYlYA%2B4%3D&reserved=0>,
>>>> if the long-term perspective is important in your use cases).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Maybe we could one day come up with a MerkleProof202x, which can be
>>>> used with both
>>>>
>>>> blockchain based and classical RFC 3161
>>>> <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftools.ietf.org%2Fhtml%2Frfc3161&data=04%7C01%7Clrosenth%40adobe.com%7C22cd3c6aa01c41a3160108d88256ae03%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C1%7C637402656093021684%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=i%2FudnLRVQl%2F1me7gmKqmPLOjkvknXiaZWkU8fQxA8Z8%3D&reserved=0>
>>>> time stamps?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> BR,
>>>>
>>>> Detlef
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Von:* Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com>
>>>> *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 5. November 2020 14:06
>>>> *An:* public-credentials@w3.org
>>>> *Betreff:* looking for help with/guidance for a schema.org
>>>> <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fschema.org%2F&data=04%7C01%7Clrosenth%40adobe.com%7C22cd3c6aa01c41a3160108d88256ae03%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C1%7C637402656093031678%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=0ABmpcHzzqAZovyjgVvTwV2RT%2B1aHl7PaJZEhqPVat0%3D&reserved=0>
>>>> proposal
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi folks,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm one of the editors of a recent schema.org
>>>> <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fschema.org%2F&data=04%7C01%7Clrosenth%40adobe.com%7C22cd3c6aa01c41a3160108d88256ae03%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C1%7C637402656093031678%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=0ABmpcHzzqAZovyjgVvTwV2RT%2B1aHl7PaJZEhqPVat0%3D&reserved=0>
>>>> proposal for time-stamping content via blockchain
>>>> <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fschemaorg%2Fschemaorg%2Fissues%2F2756&data=04%7C01%7Clrosenth%40adobe.com%7C22cd3c6aa01c41a3160108d88256ae03%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C1%7C637402656093041676%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=v7vAxbr2fPhs%2FJWL01dq4Opn7ftNSe4Tb7ldu9A0oxE%3D&reserved=0> and
>>>> am hoping you can provide us (the authors of the proposal) with some
>>>> help/guidance as to how this proposal might be realized such that it:
>>>>
>>>>    - allows everyday publishers to publish markup to:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>    - timestamp their content in a 'simple' yet verifiable manner
>>>>       - optionally provide the content used (a Key) for generating a
>>>>       transaction hash
>>>>       - optionally provide the content used for generating a
>>>>       transaction hash of previous editions of the content (via a Key that refers
>>>>       to its previous edition)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>    - *doesn't conflict *with the (enormous) amount of work this group
>>>>    has already done
>>>>
>>>> Prior to posting the schema.org
>>>> <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fschema.org%2F&data=04%7C01%7Clrosenth%40adobe.com%7C22cd3c6aa01c41a3160108d88256ae03%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C1%7C637402656093041676%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=BLKX4%2BHs7WjS%2B0WK0kmPfLaVwdp0R7thjwg4Ag4cq5o%3D&reserved=0>
>>>> proposal Manu Sporny was so kind to provide us with some resources that he
>>>> recommended we should read (about merkle-proof, opentimestamps, chainpoint
>>>> and hash-links) though after we posted the proposal it became clear we
>>>> hadn't succeeded in preventing conflicts with MerkleProof2019 (and possibly
>>>> also with other parts of the work this group has done).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So over the last 4-5 days I've taken a real deep dive into the Security
>>>> Vocabulary
>>>> <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fw3c-ccg.github.io%2Fsecurity-vocab%2F&data=04%7C01%7Clrosenth%40adobe.com%7C22cd3c6aa01c41a3160108d88256ae03%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C1%7C637402656093051665%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=tAlZLQpfWmkwpVzmhQSZZDdyxDuUj3Cyk9k8Amr1LD0%3D&reserved=0> only
>>>> to end up feeling completely overwhelmed by it and subsequently have come
>>>> to a halt in working on our schema.org
>>>> <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fschema.org%2F&data=04%7C01%7Clrosenth%40adobe.com%7C22cd3c6aa01c41a3160108d88256ae03%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C1%7C637402656093051665%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=faH5BNh0WNzrbOLcdzuGq4V1TPPoXMF%2FrF5blvv04Tc%3D&reserved=0>
>>>> proposal as I realized we won't be able to get this done without your input
>>>> (because we're set on not getting into conflict with your drafts).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The (maybe naive) objective of our proposal is to provide publishers
>>>> with an 'easy' solution to achieve the objectives I mentioned above and as
>>>> such provide validators with the minimum data they need (entry-points so to
>>>> say) to be to validate the timestamps (by getting the rest of the
>>>> information they need elsewhere).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Any help would be greatly appreciated!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The markup model for time-stamping content we've come up with thus far
>>>> looks like this:
>>>>
>>>> {
>>>>   "@context":"https://schema.org
>>>> <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fschema.org%2F&data=04%7C01%7Clrosenth%40adobe.com%7C22cd3c6aa01c41a3160108d88256ae03%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637402656093061660%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=xVvUBNAXhxd%2FudE1LJMa2doBY08CxhLy0cf4O%2FNSZLM%3D&reserved=0>
>>>> ",
>>>>   "@type":"Article",
>>>>   "name":"A time-stamped article",
>>>>   "mainEntityOfPage":"https://example.com/time-stamped-article/
>>>> <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fexample.com%2Ftime-stamped-article%2F&data=04%7C01%7Clrosenth%40adobe.com%7C22cd3c6aa01c41a3160108d88256ae03%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C1%7C637402656093061660%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=E42I1d8mNa8IDO8SxpIXbopr7R98GhwhFRYoRQEz4rU%3D&reserved=0>
>>>> ",
>>>>   "timestamp":
>>>>   {
>>>>     "@type":"BlockchainTransaction",
>>>>
>>>> "identifier":"0fce9c929ef03838775703d4cf55b7b1bdd6a5cc3503a2606dbe3b6c0cf0a802",
>>>>
>>>> "hash":"8A258E516081C36B866812E49495628CBDC1DD4126DB321A28AE95EE55B83BAB",
>>>>     "hashingKey":"
>>>> https://example.com/json/?key=8A258E516081C36B866812E49495628CBDC1DD4126DB321A28AE95EE55B83BAB
>>>> <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fexample.com%2Fjson%2F%3Fkey%3D8A258E516081C36B866812E49495628CBDC1DD4126DB321A28AE95EE55B83BAB&data=04%7C01%7Clrosenth%40adobe.com%7C22cd3c6aa01c41a3160108d88256ae03%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C1%7C637402656093071652%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=ml7FwrkIIMsASD5G8p2%2FPv%2BiLqV6xWD3nVa%2B7Qg2WV4%3D&reserved=0>
>>>> ",
>>>>     "isPartOf":
>>>>     {
>>>>       "@type":"BlockchainBlock",
>>>>
>>>> "identifier":"058ca16036c058217753b01200118f3ed92bfb2cee9a6c75bdb7bb1d110a767e",
>>>>       "blockHeight":3456789
>>>>     },
>>>>     "recordedIn":
>>>>     {
>>>>       "@type":"Blockchain",
>>>>       "name":"eos",
>>>>       "network":"mainnet",
>>>>
>>>> "identifier":"aca376f206b8fc25a6ed44dbdc66547c36c6c33e3a119ffbeaef943642f0e906"
>>>>     }
>>>>   }
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The markup model for the Key looks like this:
>>>>
>>>> {
>>>>   "@context":"https://schema.org
>>>> <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fschema.org%2F&data=04%7C01%7Clrosenth%40adobe.com%7C22cd3c6aa01c41a3160108d88256ae03%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C637402656093071652%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=4cQmaHVrc28IcK3IpdT5BCgpe5JRT1lzbBMzRgK3oZs%3D&reserved=0>
>>>> ",
>>>>   "@type":"Key",
>>>>   "dateCreated":"2020-09-27T20:28:41+01:00",
>>>>   "isBasedOn":"https://example.com/time-stamped-article/
>>>> <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fexample.com%2Ftime-stamped-article%2F&data=04%7C01%7Clrosenth%40adobe.com%7C22cd3c6aa01c41a3160108d88256ae03%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C1%7C637402656093081650%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=OapL0eZ5ILC8uc3JAOamBZJ6BLLmZG3%2B95oRv%2BT%2Fq%2FM%3D&reserved=0>
>>>> ",
>>>>   "encodingAlgorithm":"SHA-256",
>>>>   "encodingFormat":"text/html"
>>>>   "text":"<h1>Nunc eget lorem dolor sed</h1>\t\t\n\t\t\t<h2>Suspendisse
>>>> sed nisi lacus sed viverra tellus.</h2>\t\t\n\t\t\t<p>Non consectetur a
>>>> erat nam at lectus urna. Ut porttitor leo a diam sollicitudin tempor id
>>>> eu.</p>..."
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>>
>
> --
> Konstantinos A. Karasavvas
> Software Architect, Blockchain Engineer, Researcher, Educator
> https://twitter.com/kkarasavvas
>