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

(editorial/clarificaton

> On 3 May 2021, at 16:05, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:
> 
> Just providing my own thoughts on this as an Editor of the specifications that
> are being considered for the standards track.
> 
> I agree with much of what Ivan has stated. Some more thoughts below:
> 
> On 5/3/21 5:06 AM, Ivan Herman wrote:

These are actually quotes from Dan Brickley, not mine:-)

I.


>> Would it apply to schemas published at http: URIs or only https: URIs?
> 
> It could... or it might not. All of the technologies are optional, not
> mandatory expectations on the entire RDF / Semantic Web / Linked Data
> communities. If the technology is helpful to your use case, use it... if not,
> ignore it.
> 
>> Are we convinced that there is application-level value in having
>> assurances over instance data without also having them for the schemas and
>> ontologies they are underpinned by?
> 
> Yes, I am. Much of the work in Verifiable Credentials utilize schemas that are
> cached client-side (usually permanently, and enforced by software). We don't
> need schemas to adopt the technology for it to be useful. It would be more
> useful if schema publishing used the technologies, but I don't think anyone is
> placing that as a MUST along this road (because there is no need to create a
> dependency there).
> 
>> Is there an expectation that schema/ontology publishing practice would need
>> to change to accommodate these scenarios?
> 
> No, I don't think there is an expectation. There is a possibility there that
> would need years of examination once this technology is standardized... but
> that can happen in parallel. If it helps the schema publishing ecosystem --
> great... if it doesn't, the technology is still useful elsewhere.
> 
>> Would schema-publishing organizations like Dublin Core, Schema.org 
>> <http://Schema.org>, Wikidata, DBpedia, be expected to publish a JSON-LD
>> (1.0? 1.1?) context file? What change management, versioning, etc practices
>> would be required? Would special new schemas be needed instead?
> 
> I don't think there is any such expectation at present. It's too early to tell
> if schema publishing organizations or data consumers would find this
> technology useful enough to mandate... but that's also why it would be good to
> have the schema publishing organizations at the table.
> 
>> For eg. if instance data created in 2019 uses a schema ex:Foo type last 
>> updated in 2021, but which has since 2018 contained an assertion of 
>> owl:equivalentClass to ex2:Bar, and an rdfs:subClassOf ex3:Xyz, are changes
>> to the definitions of these supposed to be relevant to the trustability of
>> the instance data? If so, why does 
>> https://w3c.github.io/lds-wg-charter/index.html 
>> <https://w3c.github.io/lds-wg-charter/index.html> not discuss the role of 
>> schema/ontology definitions in all this?
> 
> That is a complex question -- and I don't think we have a clear answer today
> (and may not for a while). That question, however, is one that can be
> contemplated in parallel with the work -- but seems like it's out of scope.
> Schema security need to contemplate many things... being able to digitally
> sign the schema is just one of those things (at a lower layer). At a higher
> layer is how one would interpret the sorts of statements you outline... and I
> expect those to be outside of the scope of the (presumably more lower level)
> current charter.
> 
> -- manu
> 
> -- 
> Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/
> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> blog: Veres One Decentralized Identifier Blockchain Launches
> https://tinyurl.com/veres-one-launches
> 
> 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C 
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +33 6 52 46 00 43
ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704