I'm probably just worrying again

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_Categor
>> y_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