Re: Chartering work has started for a Linked Data Signature Working Group @W3C

The charter does mention various RDF serialization formats, and calls out the role of a JSON-LD Context, in particular. I think we should make it clear that the basis of the work is on the RDF Abstract Syntax, with serializations used as examples. Typically, these are written in Turtle/TriG as a well-understood representation, but it’s entirely appropriate to have some written in other serialization formats, or even allow a choice to view examples in different formats, or in non-normative sections on concrete syntaxes.

Securing a JSON-LD context should not be a direct focus of this group, but it does point to work needed elsewhere. At the time, in the JSON-LD WG, the proposed hashlink URL scheme [1] looked like it would address this generically, and could be used to solve the issue of referencing quite specific versions of remote resources such as JSON-LD contexts and frames, which is part of the reason the group deferred action on adding anything explicitly for context integrity.

The Linked Data Security Vocabulary, of necessity, does focus on vocabulary definitions in concrete syntaxes, and JSON-LD Contexts are commonly considered to be part of such vocabulary definitions.

Otherwise, I would say that format-specific considerations should be left to non-normative notes and best practice documents. Of course, other groups may create their own normative documents, based on recommendations emerging from this group, that define some format-specific requirements, is is done with VCs, for example.

If we can restrict the focus of the group, as much as possible, to dealing with abstract RDF datasets, we may be able to narrow the discussion sufficiently to find common ground.

Gregg

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-sporny-hashlink-07 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-sporny-hashlink-07>