Re: Supply Chain Cryptographic Event Logs (was Re: [PROPOSED WORK ITEM] CEL DID Method (did:cel))

Hi Manu,

Thanks for this assessment.  We could be thinking the same thing.  

I didn’t mean that the did:cel would contain the entire bill of lading.  Assumed that would be a VC.  I assumed that the issuer of the VC is the original carrier.  The subject of the vc is the consignment identified by a did:cel.  And so the transfer of control is achieved by transferring the underlying did:cel consignment ID to a new controller (aka title owner).  So verification is “yes it’s a valid BoL and issued by a known and trusted ocean carrier, I see that the Consignment id is also represented as a did:cel, now who currently controls that did:cel because that are also the current title holder”.   Is that more or less what you were thinking or am I off track?

Steve Capell
UN/CEFACT Vice-Chair
steve.capell@gmail.com
+61 410437854



> On 20 Jan 2026, at 9:42 am, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Jan 17, 2026 at 9:05 PM steve capell <steve.capell@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Transferrable records.
> 
> I'm not sure the core of that flow is a did:cel or a did:webvh use
> case -- it could be a VC use case where the bill of lading has a
> controller that is set at every step of the journey by the previous
> controller... where the changes to each re-issued VC are wrapped up in
> a Cryptographic Event Log (CEL). So, you could punt the NFT and
> blockchain network to the curb and just depend on raw/dumb
> HTTPS-accessible storage to "hold" the latest version of the bill of
> lading.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, you could model the ocean bill of lading as a DID
> Document, where transfer of ownership is done via key rotation or
> something like that. That's one of the benefits of Linked Data -- you
> can embed graphs of information just about anywhere. That is also one
> of the drawbacks -- you have many ways that information can be
> modelled and we depend on a body like UN/CEFACT to tell us all how to
> do it.
> 
> So, this could look something like:
> 
> 1. Original bill of lading (BOL) is issued by the Shipper. BOL becomes
> the first entry in cryptographic event log with Shipper as controller.
> 2. Shipper transfers cargo to Carrier. Shipper sets Carrier as
> controller and digitally signs VC. Updated BOL becomes second entry in
> cryptographic event log with Carrier as controller.
> 3. Shipper shares latest BOL in cryptographic event log with Bank,
> bank releases payment to Shipper. Shipper sets Bank as controller and
> digitally signs VC. Updated BOL becomes third entry in cryptographic
> event log with Bank as controller.
> 
> I probably messed something up in the steps there (you are the expert
> here, not I), but I hope you get the gist of how it might work with a
> cryptographic event log. The DIDs would be the long-term identifiers
> for the entities (Shipper, Carrier, Bank, etc.) -- those could be
> did:web, did:webvh, did:cel, doesn't matter as long as they meet the
> needs of the ecosystem. Digital signatures to "transfer ownership"
> would be based on keys associated with each controller's DID.
> 
>> Long lived assets.
> 
> Yes, we are looking at CELs for this, and they'd mirror the sort of
> thing going on with BOL above (except simpler -- usually just
> buyer-seller transfers are recorded in the CEL over time).
> 
>> Authoritative issuers.
> 
> CELs may or may not play a role here -- you can combine DIDs with VCs
> and CELs to get to multiple variations of what you're talking about
> that work without the need for a blockchain (since you noted that
> blockchain adoption is difficult in the supply chain space).
> 
>> Either way the market sees us as solving business problems through consensus rather than a bunch of techies arguing about who’s did method is better (no offence intended !).
> 
> Yes, agreed.
> 
> -- manu
> 
> -- 
> Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/
> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> https://www.digitalbazaar.com/