Something that is clear from the spec but not specifically called out in this thread. This cryptographic event log uses data integrity proofs and there is no other available standard that meets that criteria other than what we’ve defined in did:webvh. If there is I would be interested in seeing it! Brian On Sun, Jul 13, 2025 at 4:37 PM Christopher Allen < ChristopherA@lifewithalacrity.com> wrote: > Also similar problem space to Provenance Marks, which we presented on in > the CCG back in early June: > > CCG Presentation: > https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/dda13eef-820e-4cc5-b28f-f5c79f06052d/20250603T120000/ > CCG Slides: > https://developer.blockchaincommons.com/assets/pdfs/2025-06-provenance-marks.pdf > > Video of a different presentation at: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKAK6j4mqgE > > Spec: > https://github.com/BlockchainCommons/Research/blob/master/papers/bcr-2025-001-provenance-mark.md > Rust Library: https://github.com/BlockchainCommons/provenance-mark-rust > Rust CLI Library: > https://github.com/BlockchainCommons/provenance-mark-cli-rust > Swift Library: https://github.com/BlockchainCommons/Provenance > > There is a comparison of Cryptographic Event Logs and Provenance Marks at: > https://hackmd.io/@bc-community/HycjswAIyx > > One observation is that there is some distinction about architecture > focusing on witnesses (which requires more infrastructure) vs cryptographic > logs (which requires less infrastructure). I would suggest that this group > try to keep the architecture for what it does somewhat independent and not > bound to each other, but can leverage both. > > -- Christopher Allen > > >
Received on Sunday, 13 July 2025 23:59:46 UTC