W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > June 2021

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

From: Henry Story <henry.story@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2021 08:29:50 +0200
Message-Id: <0319E2F4-4A8C-404C-A459-8BF288584214@gmail.com>
Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, semantic-web@w3.org
To: Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net>


> On 5. Jun 2021, at 21:11, Gregg Kellogg <gregg@greggkellogg.net> wrote:
> 
> 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.

I guess that with a method to sign canonicalized RDF data as the LDS group
proposes to do, then such hash link URLs could be a lot more stable.


> 
> 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
> 
> 


Received on Sunday, 6 June 2021 06:30:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:46:08 UTC