- From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 02:36:14 +0000
- To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@w3.org>, public-credentials@w3.org, public-socialweb@w3.org, Stéphane Boyera <boyera@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CABP7RbfHz6uQ2uMJ1DTpMrN991zjuUttr8P639ATu1d-f0gqcw@mail.gmail.com>
+1. Thanks Manu. On Thu, Nov 20, 2014, 6:03 PM Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote: > On 11/19/2014 02:30 PM, Harry Halpin wrote: > > There is no debate. JOSE is a standard for JSON that has had high > > review and adoption from the IETF. SM is a proposed specification > > from a Community Group for RDF that is out of scope for the Social > > Web WG, although conceivably some future WG at the IETF could find > > their normalization algorithm useful. > > It's not the place of a W3C staff contact to declare victory and shut > down a debate. You're overstepping your authority, Harry. > > Clearly, people are arguing about JOSE vs. SM. There is a debate, even > if you don't want there to be one. > > Here are the points where I agree with you: > > * Standardizing SM via Social Web WG is clearly out of scope of the > charter. No one has asked Social Web WG to take on that work. > * The RDF Graph Normalization stuff will happen in a group that cares > about that sort of thing, not in the Social Web WG. > * It's probably not worth debating whether or not RDF Graph > Normalization or SM is going to happen in the Social Web WG. > > However, stating that JOSE is the obvious choice for digital signatures > in the Social Web WG, the Web Payments CG, the Credentials CG, the > Linked Data Platform, or even the Web Payments IG is very far from > reality and you'll find that there will be considerable push-back if the > Social Web WG tries to railroad the use of JOSE through on something > that touches Linked Data. > > > For the Social Web WG, as regards JSON, we will use JOSE as SM is out > > of scope as its not part of our deliverables. If another WG > > standardizes SM (which I would be doubtful of), then I'm happy to > > reconsider. > > It's not for you alone to decide which digital signature mechanism the > Social Web WG is going to use. W3C operates on consensus, and there is > currently no consensus on which digital signature mechanism would be > best. It's highly inappropriate of a W3C staff contact (you) to assert > that a group /will/ use a particular technology, especially when that > very "decision" is being challenged by multiple people in the community. > > -- manu > > -- > Manu Sporny (skype: msporny, twitter: manusporny, G+: +Manu Sporny) > Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. > blog: The Marathonic Dawn of Web Payments > http://manu.sporny.org/2014/dawn-of-web-payments/ > >
Received on Friday, 21 November 2014 02:36:42 UTC