W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-interledger@w3.org > September 2016

Re: Will ILP go live on October 1?

From: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 23:24:05 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKaEYhK6J2xVV=+MYtct47Mk-uoQnGY-kDXR0n+3ouxb_8XdcQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jehan Tremback <jehan.tremback@gmail.com>
Cc: Evan Schwartz <evan@ripple.com>, Karen Slawinsky <karen.slawinsky@teambesure.com>, Yassin Mobarak <ymobarak@gmail.com>, Roger Bass <roger@traxiant.com>, Daniel Bateman <7daniel77@gmail.com>, Stefan Thomas <stefan@ripple.com>, win than aung <winthan@chomeaye.com>, Interledger Community Group <public-interledger@w3.org>
On 19 September 2016 at 23:01, Jehan Tremback <jehan.tremback@gmail.com>

> What is Uberledger? It looks like it is not a protocol at all. There's a
> whitepaper with no technical proposal, which links to a website with no
> technical proposal, which links back to the whitepaper. There's also a
> github account which contains the source of the website.
> http://arxiv.org/pdf/1609.02598v1.pdf
> http://uberledger.io
> https://github.com/uberledger
> There's some handwaving about "3-tuples" and RDF (they even get some LaTeX
> in there). But no hint of any description of a system.
> RDF may be a a good data serialization format for some stuff (so far it
> only seems to be used for website previews on Facebook). But it could be
> applied to anything. In and of itself, it does nothing. One of the risks of
> taking software through standards bodies is that people will come and try
> to get you to use their pet serialization format. Uberledger seems to have
> the serialization format, without the software.

RDF is not a serialization format.  It is a framwork for defining resources
on the web using URIs.  It does have a number of quite nice serialization
formats which are interchangeable, namely RDF/XML, Turtle, RDFa, JSON-LD,
RDF/JSON and more advanced but not yet standarized extensions such as TriG
and N3.

But RDF itself is a language for read and writing data.  It has two
aspects, one is the data itself and one is meta data.  The meta data is
quite important in that it can be protocol information or vocabulary /
ontology infomration.  Uberledger references BLONDIE -- Blockchain ontology
with dynamic extensibility.


There's two aspects to RDF, one is the data which is declarative.  The
other is algorithms and protocols which read and write the data.  There is
a very clean spearation of concerns which enable massive scalability.
Consider the base concepts of HTML and JavaScript on the web which are a
means to markup documents and to program them.  JS and HTML are very
different things that fit together.  So RDF is to data what HTML was to
documents.  All data can be modeled cleanly in RDF and provides
interoperability with other RDF systems, using the programming language of
your choice.  I hope you're getting the picture here -- modularity leading
to scalability.

In fact the whole of the facebook graph, every user, every post, every
company is available as RDF, as is much of the world's government data and
millions (maybe billions?) of other pages.

I pointed out on another thread that uberledger section 4 is quite light on
details, but Im confident the approach is one that solves the very hard
problem we have in the crypto space, namely scalability.  Im confident that
any solution that scales like the web is going to be a very interesting
innovation in this space.  At least that's what I'm betting on.

> -Jehan
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 9:19 AM, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>> On 19 September 2016 at 17:37, Evan Schwartz <evan@ripple.com> wrote:
>>> Totally understandable to get confused by the names of these projects.
>>>    - Hyperledger is an attempt to build an industry-standard blockchain
>>>    implementation
>>>    - Interledger is a protocol for payments across different types of
>>>    ledgers and blockchains (it is not a blockchain or ledger implementation
>>>    itself)
>>>    - Uberledger is new and doesn't have much in the way of details but
>>>    it sounds like it's trying to be a "meta-blockchain layer" that uses the
>>>    same fundamentals as Bitcoin. Interledger is specifically not trying to
>>>    unify how ledgers work but to provide a minimal address and packet format
>>>    for routing payments through very different ledgers.
>>> I think theres a big difference between the approaches of interledger
>> and uberledger.  Uberledgers is a complete linked based approach.
>> Interledger seems to me to be taking ideas from linked data and embracing
>> and extending (please correct me if I'm mistaken here).
>> Uberledger is coming from IMHO one of the top linked data institutions in
>> the world.  What does linked data give you?  In a word, scalability.  It
>> means that it can interoperate with a diverse ecosystem, from governments,
>> to identity, to facebook, to many other initiatives.  The idea being that
>> the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.  My work on webcredits is
>> going down this route.
>> ILP and Hyperledger on the other hand are very unlikely to at least in
>> initial versions rely on ILP being adopted and growing organically.
>> Id like if time allows to take the best parts of ILP and translate it to
>> the linked data world.  Whether that means using ILP itself as a part or,
>> translating the concepts to an "ILP-LD", if you like, remains to be seen.
>>> Hope that helps,
>>> Evan
>>> On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 2:17 PM, Karen Slawinsky <
>>> karen.slawinsky@teambesure.com> wrote:
>>>> As a casual observer of ILP (and not a developer), can someone explain
>>>> to me the difference between ILP, Uberledger (http://uberledger.io/
>>>> <http://uberledger..io/>) and Hyperledger (https://www.hyperledger.org/
>>>> )?
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Karen
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>> On Sep 16, 2016, at 12:07 PM, Yassin Mobarak <ymobarak@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> I'm also interested to know whether or not Ripple Consensus Ledger
>>>> (RCL) and XRP will have any role in the transaction journey through ILP. If
>>>> so, will we be able to notice that traffic in Ripple Charts through an
>>>> increase in transaction volume or liquidity?
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Yassin M.
>>>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Roger Bass <roger@traxiant.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Stefan or Adrian:
>>>>> are you able to say publicly which banks will be moving transactions
>>>>> over ILP come October 1?
>>>>> Presumably, this means that a version of Ripple Connect with ILP as a
>>>>> "protocol switch" is already shipped and deployed to those banks, right?
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Roger
>>>>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 8:21 PM, Daniel Bateman <7daniel77@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Thank you for this clarification Stefan.
>>>>>> Is this information published on the Ripple website and/or Ripple
>>>>>> wiki? If not, may I ask why not?
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>> Daniel
>>>>>> On Sep 15, 2016 7:05 PM, "Stefan Thomas" <stefan@ripple..com
>>>>>> <stefan@ripple.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>> What the article is referring to is that Ripple's bank customers
>>>>>>> will be moving real money through ILP-powered Ripple products starting Oct
>>>>>>> 1st.
>>>>>>> Note that we were developing ILP internally for some time before we
>>>>>>> decided that it should become open standard and released the white paper.
>>>>>>> For now the commercial implementation of ILP inside of Ripple products and
>>>>>>> the open-source work happening in this group are pretty separate. We're
>>>>>>> getting really good ideas and feedback from the banks using ILP and that
>>>>>>> feeds back into the community group work. And of course the end goal is to
>>>>>>> have it all interconnect some day.
>>>>>>> It'll take quite some time (and a lot of community traction) before
>>>>>>> the banks would even consider connecting to a public Interledger. Hence the
>>>>>>> importance of the work this group is doing that's unrelated to Ripple. For
>>>>>>> it to be a true standard there has to be lots of activity around it that
>>>>>>> isn't directly tied to us or our customers.
>>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 2:22 PM, win than aung <winthan@chomeaye.com
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi guys,
>>>>>>>> I just saw this news - http://www.afr.com/technolog
>>>>>>>> y/nab-westpac-part-of-ripples-new-global-payments-network-20
>>>>>>>> 160915-grgz81
>>>>>>>> Ripple has created Ripple Connect, new technology to allow banks to
>>>>>>>>> talk to each other, and is developing its "interledger protocol", which
>>>>>>>>> will go live on October 1 and provide the foundation for banks to directly
>>>>>>>>> connect their ledgers with each other without an intermediary.
>>>>>>>> Is that ready to go live on Oct 1? Which ledgers are going to try
>>>>>>>> out at live on Oct 1? Gatehub? any hints?
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Winthan
>>> --
>>> Evan Schwartz | Software Architect | Ripple
>>> [image: ripple.com] <http://ripple.com>
Received on Monday, 19 September 2016 21:24:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 19 September 2016 21:24:36 UTC