Re: Abstract Data Model, JSON/JSON-LD (was: Re: First Additional DID WG Meeting)

On 1/14/20 10:59 AM, Manu Sporny wrote:
> On 1/12/20 9:39 PM, Brent Zundel wrote:
>> We will use the call to determine what questions need to be
>> addressed around the topic of the abstract data model, JSON/JSON-LD
> I believe the purpose of this call is to gather questions that need to
> be addressed, agree on the "things that we disagree on", gather
> concerns, and other useful things that will help drive the Face-to-Face
> DID WG Agenda.
>
> In that spirit, I'm going to try proposing some concerns, disagreements,
> and questions to get the ball rolling.
>
> Concerns
> --------
>
> The JSON-LD model raises *conceptual* burden for implementers to the
> level that it will be rejected by any community that needs a JSON-only
> model.
>
> The JSON-LD model raises *implementation* burden for implementers to the
> level that it will be rejected by any community that does not want to
> pay that cost.
>
> The JSON-LD model forces implementers using JSON-only toolchains to "do
> JSON-LD processing".
>
> The JSON-only approach will lead to incompatible data models wrt. the
> JSON-LD data model.
>
> The JSON-only approach will lead to a different, incompatible
> extensibility model from JSON-LD which would create an interoperability
> rift between JSON-only processors and JSON-LD processors.
>
> The JSON-only approach would centralize the extensibility model for DID
> Documents.
>
> The JSON-only approach will lead to security vulnerabilities because
> features will not be globally unambiguous.
>
> Disagreements
> -------------
>
> * Extensibility is being prioritized above security in the current DID
>   specification.
> * IOT is the primary use case for DIDs by many orders of magnitude.
> * The IOT use case and use of JSON-LD are incompatible.
> * Data in DID Documents are not intended to be co-mingled with data
>   retrieved from Verifiable Credentials.
> * JSON-LD makes the same mistakes that XML made in the late 1990s.
>
> Questions
> ---------
>
> * What is the technical use case that is made not possible due to the
>   use of JSON-LD?
> * What are the specific technical implementation burdens that are
>   created by the use of JSON-LD?
> * What are the specific costs of using JSON-LD DID Documents?
> * What is the definition of "JSON-LD Processing"?
> * What is the extensibility model for JSON-only DID Documents?
> * Do people understand that JSON-LD is a more restrictive subset of
>   JSON, so JSON-LD is JSON and is designed to be a "Chimera document
>   format"?
> * Does everyone understand that you do not need to go out to the network
>   to process a JSON-LD document and that verifiers SHOULD NOT go out
>   to the network to retrieve JSON-LD Context documents?
>
> -- manu


Hi Manu,

By definition, isn't an Abstract Model notation agnostic?

Happy New Year!

-- 
Regards,

Kingsley Idehen       
Founder & CEO 
OpenLink Software   
Home Page: http://www.openlinksw.com
Community Support: https://community.openlinksw.com
Weblogs (Blogs):
Company Blog: https://medium.com/openlink-software-blog
Virtuoso Blog: https://medium.com/virtuoso-blog
Data Access Drivers Blog: https://medium.com/openlink-odbc-jdbc-ado-net-data-access-drivers

Personal Weblogs (Blogs):
Medium Blog: https://medium.com/@kidehen
Legacy Blogs: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen/
              http://kidehen.blogspot.com

Profile Pages:
Pinterest: https://www.pinterest.com/kidehen/
Quora: https://www.quora.com/profile/Kingsley-Uyi-Idehen
Twitter: https://twitter.com/kidehen
Google+: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen

Web Identities (WebID):
Personal: http://kingsley.idehen.net/public_home/kidehen/profile.ttl#i
        : http://id.myopenlink.net/DAV/home/KingsleyUyiIdehen/Public/kingsley.ttl#this