Re: blockchain and linked data questions

Dr. Henry Story,

I remember hearing about Project Bitmark. I saved a few links and theorized
about its place [1]. I also bookmarked the transaction data model for
Bitmark [2]. There are some goals to have some support for HTTP and REST
[3], but it is apparently a hard climb [4] .

 [1]
http://bshambaugh.org/eispp/ch_1_2_VRM/PDF/EISPP_directional_graph_2fresnel_gss_vrm2transact.pdf
,
http://bshambaugh.org/eispp/ch_1_2_VRM/PDF/EISPP_directional_graph_2fresnel_gss_vrm2transact2.pdf
,
http://bshambaugh.org/eispp/ch_1_2_VRM/PDF/EISPP_directional_graph_2fresnel_gss_vrm2transact3.pdf


[2] https://github.com/project-bitmark/marking/wiki/Transaction-Data-Model

[3] https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/wiki/API-Innovation,

[4] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=660544.2185;wap2

-Brent Shambaugh

Website: bshambaugh.org

On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 5:45 AM, Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>