Re: CBOR-LD stabilization (was: Re: Regarding CBOR-LD Web Transports)

Danube Tech is working on a Java implementation of CBOR-LD:

At the moment, it wouldn't really be accurate to call it an
"independent" implementation, since it's not much more than a direct
source-to-source translation of Digital Bazaar's JavaScript code.

But we intend to make it more independent over time, and hopefully
participate in interop testing with others.

I agree with all the positive comments on this thread about this
technology, especially Orie's statement about how this uses a registry
of tags, while still enabling the open world data model.


On 25.04.21 17:13, Manu Sporny wrote:
> On 4/21/21 9:28 AM, Leonard Rosenthol wrote:
>> However, I am concerned about the status (or lack thereof) on the actual 
>> specification.
> There is the start of a specification here, albeit, it is now out of date and
> light on details:
>> Without an actual specification, preferably on an active track(!), it will
>> not be possible for this technology to be used in other standards that
>> would wish to do so.
> While I agree with this statement, we're still in early days with the
> pre-standard... it's not even a CG work item (in any CG, yet). We proposed it
> to the JSON-LD group and the response was tepid interest and confusion.
> The use case driving this stuff is the vaccination certificate work as well as
> anti-fraud features on government-issued ID cards.
> Until multiple companies engage in experiments (which is starting to happen
> now w/ Mattr and Transmute), do implementations (which there is only one of
> right now), it's an adopted work item (which is a discussion that still 
> to be had), and more loud industry support... there is only so much 3
> companies can do.
> That this stuff is of interest to Adobe is great news, but as you know, 
> need it to be of interest to 30-50 companies before we can take it standards
> track. While it looks like interest is building rapidly for CBOR-LD... we're
> not quite there yet and I have no idea when we will be there.
> To put it in perspective, it took ~9 years for the interest to build in 
> Data Signatures before we were able to get a W3C Charter circulated for 
it. I
> expect CBOR-LD might move much faster (it's far simpler than JSON-LD, VCs,
> DIDs, or Linked Data Signatures).
>> Also, I would like to see more work done on non-VC/DID uses cases for the
>> technology to demonstrate its flexibility and benefit in other contexts
>> that require optimized binary serializations.
> Agreed, and that would require new participants to join in. This will most
> likely occur via the proposed Linked Data Signatures WG. The current
> participants are buried in work.
>> I am happy to do what I can to further the work on the spec as needed...
> The next step for the specification would be:
> 1. Reading and understanding the current stable
>    implementation:
> 2. Translate the code into algorithms in the
>    specification:
> PRs welcome. :)
> -- manu

Received on Wednesday, 28 April 2021 16:45:48 UTC