- From: pukkamustard <pukkamustard@posteo.net>
- Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2020 06:53:16 +0200
- To: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
- Cc: Linking Open Data <public-lod@w3.org>, semantic-web@w3.org, David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Hi Harry, I have recently been working on making RDF content-addressable. This includes finding a canonical serialization of RDF [1]. The serialization I proposed is based on Canonical S-Expressions [2], which is very simple to implement. However, it is restricted to a subset of RDF without Blank Nodes. It would be great to use the Skolemization proposed by Aidan Hogan [3] (as also linked in the issue [4] posted by David) to make the scheme above work for general RDF. There is also HDT [5], a binary serialization of RDF with some neat tricks. I am looking into whether HDT could be used as a canonical serialization. -pukkamustard [1] https://openengiadina.net/papers/content-addressable-rdf.html [2] https://people.csail.mit.edu/rivest/Sexp.txt [3] http://aidanhogan.com/docs/skolems_blank_nodes_www.pdf [4] https://github.com/w3c/EasierRDF/issues/26 [5] http://www.rdfhdt.org/ David Booth <david@dbooth.org> writes: > On 8/31/20 4:13 PM, Harry Halpin wrote: >> I am reading the W3C Verified Credentials Data Model, and I'm >> noticing there's >> not a W3C Verified Credentials Syntax >> (https://www.w3.org/TR/vc-data-model/#syntaxes). Instead, there >> is JSON >> and JWT, JSON-LD, perhaps with LD Proofs. The obvious problem >> is that you >> cannot specify a cryptographic signature scheme unless you have >> a concrete >> bytestring you are signing (you usually have to hash the >> message to sign). So, >> its quite unclear what it means to "sign" a graph unless you >> have a single >> version of the graph as *bytes*. > > The lack of a standard graph (or dataset) canonicalization for > RDF is recorded > as issue #26, and remains an unsolved problem: > https://github.com/w3c/EasierRDF/issues/26 > >> There's a Community Specification called "RDF Dataset >> Normalization": >> http://json-ld.github.io/normalization/spec/ > > AFAIK that is the closest we have come toward reaching a > standard for this, and > I'm grateful that the JSON-LD group got as far as they did with > it. However, it > does have one very significant gap that I believe is important > to address: it is > focused only on the digital signatures use case. The algorithm > needs > improvement to better address the diff use case, in which small, > localized graph > changes should result in small, localized differences in the > canonicalized > graph. Aidan Hogan has done a lot of work on blank nodes and > canonicalization > that could probably help. Here is one of his papers: > http://aidanhogan.com/docs/rdf-canonicalisation.pdf > > David Booth > >> However, it does not actually specify a syntax, just a graph >> normalization algorithm (which is unclear if it actually works, >> usually you >> need proofs for these sorts of things). >> Second, there is Linked Data Proofs, which also does not >> actually seem >> to feature a way to convert arbitrary linked data graphs to >> bytes and is also >> not normative. >> https://w3c-ccg.github.io/ld-proofs/ >> Perhaps this is just a solved problem, but given that the usage >> of >> signatures in Verified Credentials requires getting this right >> (see the >> various attacks on XML DSIG), I'd like to know if 1) there is a >> normative normalization to bytes of RDF graphs and 2) If it has >> some proofs or >> real interoperability, not just a JS library. >> thanks, >> harry >> >>
Received on Tuesday, 1 September 2020 04:56:07 UTC