Re: blockchain and linked data questions

On Sun, 10 Jan 2016 9:49 PM Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 10 January 2016 at 11:15, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 10 Jan 2016, at 01:22, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I did the data modeling already.  Not the DHT tho.
>>
>> https://w3id.org/cc
>>
>> My current line of thinking is around private block chains (with a slight
>> twist) ... more soon!
>>
>>
>> Nice.
>>
>> The ontology looks very much like a first draft though. None of the
>> relations have
>> domains or ranges specified in RDFS. And there is no link to
>> documentation from
>> the various blockchain protocols to allow one to verify the design
>> decisions. For
>> something like this it actually looks like OWL modelling would be quite
>> important,
>>  to verify that the model was consistent and did not contain
>> contradictions, and to
>> make sure it was used consistentlty.
>>
>
> I didnt add owl ranges because they were not needed.  The vocab is
> complete and can model most block chains.  Feel free to model it yourself
> (I encourage you to do so!), you'll end up in the same place.
>
>
>>
>> It also looks like what is missing is a peer reviewed paper that would go
>> with this.
>>
>> Btw. I wonder if one could not use the ontologies from the web payments
>> group
>> https://web-payments.org/  such as digital signatures
>> https://web-payments.org/vocabs/signature
>>
>
> Possibly, there's a lot of devil in the details.
>
>
should be ok.  depends on implementation method.   working on that.

>
>> Anyway, something like this if peer reviewed could help bring a lot of
>> clarity
>> to what the block chain is, as it would make the logical side of the
>> block chain
>> explicit. So it looks like this is actually an (interesting) research
>> topic.
>>
>
> Yes, but im not an academic, so not my focus.  Ive spoken to academics
> about this, and not had any complaints.
>
>
>>
>> except it's less compact.
>>
>>
>> Would it still be (much) less compact if one used a binary RDF notation?
>>
>
> Yes
>
>
>> I am not sure what the latest on this is, but I found the following:
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/Submission/2011/03/
>> http://www.rdfhdt.org/what-is-hdt/
>>
>>  [...]
>>
>>
>> This of course still leaves open the question which of the new types
>> of protocols should be used, given the movement in this space as
>> indicated by Toni Arcieri's blog post
>>  https://tonyarcieri.com/the-death-of-bitcoin
>>
>
> Bitcoin doesnt need any new protocols.  It works just fine.  It does one
> job well.  Translating bitcoin to the web is an interesting idea if you
> have a use case.  Making a web version of the P2P network may need
> something like webDHT.
>
>
>>
>> As I understand the word "chain" in blockchain is quite important. Each
>> element is
>> linked to the previous one and the chain of signatures has to be
>> verified. So if someone
>> transferrred money from A to B, one would need to find the previous state
>> of A's account
>> by going from the head of the block chain to the previous state of his
>> account. I guess this
>> is the reason why folks need to have the whole blockchain available to
>> them.
>>
>
> A block chain is just a linked list.  Nothing very special about it.  You
> dont need the whole block chain, but it can help if you want to verify
> balances independently.  Some block chains have missing blocks and continue
> to work.
>
>
>>
>> But then there is work going on that also does not require this level of
>> consistency. So
>> there is research to be done in mapping out the space between the
>> blockchain and simple
>> document signatures, and explaining when what should be used.
>>
>
> There's lots of educational material out there.  Once you assimilate it
> all, you'll see the bitcoin block chain is a very simple structure.  It's
> actually not that interesting.  More interesting are the behavioral aspects
> and how it is used.
>
>
>>
>> Btw, does anyone know if there is there a group in Europe that is already
>> researching
>> this space?
>>
>> Great brainstorming.
>>
>> Henry
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>