Re: I'm probably just worrying again

Apologies for adding to the noise. Here is a better formatted document. :
https://github.com/bshambaugh/Explorations-of-Category-Theory-for-Self-Sovereign-Identity/blob/main/todo.md

I hope to see you at IIW where we might be able to hack this stuff out.

-Brent Shambaugh

GitHub: https://github.com/bshambaugh
Website: http://bshambaugh.org/
LinkedIN: https://www.linkedin.com/in/brent-shambaugh-9b91259
Skype: brent.shambaugh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Brent_Shambaugh
WebID: http://bshambaugh.org/foaf.rdf#me


On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 2:58 PM Brent Shambaugh <brent.shambaugh@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Here are my thoughts. Maybe because you are super busy, and this is
> possibly irrelevant, you could ignore them:
>
> I'm putting this together:
> https://github.com/bshambaugh/Explorations-of-Category-Theory-for-Self-Sovereign-Identity/blob/main/todo.txt
> . It is very much a work in progress. Maybe a TR 1 or 2.
>
> This is a lot of work, made more difficult by the fact that I have not
> been in the game as long as some of you. Of course, I get thoughts about
> yielding my co-chair position at the DIF interop WG. I show up for meetings
> for that and try to facilitate ways to move things forward. It is hard to
> keep track of things going on in the space: more projects and more
> organizations are showing up. I try not to insist on my own way, or
> inordinately seek a place of honor (could have failed here). I think this
> is advised against in the Bible. Even if math is the answer, I shouldn't be
> stubborn and only facilitate that path. Sometimes I imagine activity will
> flow like water, like at IIW, where the most interest and talent lies. I
> certainly don't want to stand in the way. For interop, in my opinion, math
> is the way to go. I believe the game will play out, for however long it
> will and things will get progressively harder to follow and people will be
> begging for tools to make sense of it all. This is why I prefer tackling
> activity with a mathematical approach. This is taking me some time. I hope
> this next IIW will bring some sort of breakthrough. I hope to be at a point
> where I can present things in such a way that Ryan (the category theory
> expert I talk to) has an idea of what I am considering so it does not seem
> too zany.  At the same time though, I'm trying to allow people to go in the
> direction they choose and provide facilitation for collaboration. (I
> definitely could be doing math regardless of what hats I try on...and could
> likely find a place to present my thoughts .... I don't need a leadership
> position that could make that easier... given they were well developed). I
> know I had been getting stimulated every time I saw a co-chair position pop
> up because I wanted to help out / give back. I'd be nowhere with my
> personal project if it was not for the work in this community. (I'm trying
> to get this done as well). Things sort of fell into place once I made the
> decision to return to IIW in the fall of 2019. While most of the work is
> done in the open, and also open to consumption, it certainly isn't free.
> Thousands of hours and countless meetings online and all around the world
> have taken place. I hope my contributions prove to help in some sort of
> way. It may not be clear until later. I hope too that this work makes us
> more free, rather than less.
>
> -Brent Shambaugh
>
> GitHub: https://github.com/bshambaugh
> Website: http://bshambaugh.org/
> LinkedIN: https://www.linkedin.com/in/brent-shambaugh-9b91259
> Skype: brent.shambaugh
> Twitter: https://twitter.com/Brent_Shambaugh
> WebID: http://bshambaugh.org/foaf.rdf#me
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 11:26 PM Brent Shambaugh <
> brent.shambaugh@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Thank you Snorre, Wayne, and David for your replies. Along the way I also
>> discovered “Formal Modelling and Application of Graph Transformations in
>> the Resource Description Framework” by Benjamin Braatz due to Ryan
>> Wisenesky which is different but may share some elements of what Wayne
>> shared? This treatment is quite complete, but I must admit I frequently
>> find myself distracted. (recently I discovered bls_381 for FPGAs —good
>> stuff). Hence, a more concrete review is in store for me. The book, “Real
>> World Cryptography” by David Wong has section 7.3.3. for the Elliptic Curve
>> Digital Signature Algorithm. I figure that once I understand the math and
>> how it relates to group theory  ( which may or may not be able to be
>> generalized for all signature types?) and how this relates to the
>> definition of a category I can then generalize to a signature of a payload
>> and then consider Braatz’s work for consideration of RDF and json schema…
>>
>>
>> https://dashjoin.medium.com/json-schema-schema-org-json-ld-whats-the-difference-e30d7315686a
>>
>> -Brent
>>
>> On Friday, September 9, 2022, Snorre Lothar von Gohren Edwin <
>> snorre@diwala.io> wrote:
>>
>>> Go for it! :D Also remember, sharing helps the process more than sitting
>>> in a cave doing it all by oneself.
>>> But if we can more quickly agree on if something is a match when
>>> exchanging and connecting agents, as Wayne talks about, I think we can
>>> increase the possibility for interoperability.
>>> ᐧ
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 9, 2022 at 2:20 AM Wayne Chang <wayne@spruceid.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think category theory has a lot to offer when welded with knowledge
>>>> graphs like those expressed in RDF. It could result in safer and more
>>>> convenient ways to handle data with semantics, or even negotiating
>>>> supported crypto suites/data integrity systems via type systems. Then you
>>>> can prove that two things can plug together before trying it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281367586_A_Category_Theoretic_Model_of_RDF_Ontology
>>>>
>>>> ^ I just skimmed this but the parallels already seem pretty cool.
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 16:11 Wayne Chang <wayne@spruceid.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I think that’s great Brent, but also please don’t make people
>>>>> learn what monads are just to compare two JSON API outputs. Would be
>>>>> excited to review any of your developments here.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Sep 8, 2022 at 15:02 Brent Shambaugh <
>>>>> brent.shambaugh@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think I know the answer to this, and may have no reason to share
>>>>>> this publicly. Perhaps it is good though that I reveal a background process
>>>>>> that has continually plagued me since I was exposed to an interesting group
>>>>>> of people about 2 years ago.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If I find a way to use abstract math to improve interoperability, is
>>>>>> that okay? Even if it did help, it is possible that it could add to the
>>>>>> burden to developers (as I've derived from outside conversations).
>>>>>> This exploration is something at least that I am likely to continue
>>>>>> with on my own. I did take on a more official role. Listening, moderating,
>>>>>> and facilitating is probably the primary focus. I don't see a reason why I
>>>>>> should stop my explorations, but I do see something wrong with insisting
>>>>>> that my compass spawned by my fuzzy thoughts or impressionability is the
>>>>>> only way to go.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Brent Shambaugh
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> *Snorre Lothar von Gohren Edwin*
>>> Co-Founder & CTO, Diwala
>>> +47 411 611 94
>>> www.diwala.io
>>> <http://www.diwala.io/>
>>> *Stay on top of Diwala news on social media! **Facebook
>>> <https://www.facebook.com/diwalaorg>** / **LinkedIn
>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/diwala>** / **Instagram
>>> <https://www.instagram.com/diwala_/>** / **Twitter
>>> <https://twitter.com/Diwala>*
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> -Brent Shambaugh
>>
>> GitHub: https://github.com/bshambaugh
>> Website: http://bshambaugh.org/
>> LinkedIN: https://www.linkedin.com/in/brent-shambaugh-9b91259
>> Skype: brent.shambaugh
>> Twitter: https://twitter.com/Brent_Shambaugh
>> WebID: http://bshambaugh.org/foaf.rdf#me
>>
>