Re: blockchain and linked data questions

If it is helpful, moving up the directory tree gives
http://bshambaugh.org/eispp which is a broader context,which mentions
WebID, LDP, etc. I'm guessing a number a people here know a lot more than I
do.

-Brent Shambaugh

Website: bshambaugh.org

On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Brent Shambaugh <brent.shambaugh@gmail.com
> wrote:

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