- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
- Date: Tue, 4 May 2021 15:01:35 +0100
- To: Phil Archer <phil.archer@gs1.org>
- Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Aidan Hogan <aidhog@gmail.com>, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine@w3.org>, Ramanathan Guha <guha@google.com>, semantic-web <semantic-web@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAK-qy=59kF4+CZC9UfqUXpyTD=Jxh8qY0mHVzTu90ycbgXj7PA@mail.gmail.com>
Thanks Phil, and everyone else who has commented. There's been a lot of interesting points raised. Ivan's PRs look like progress. But I think now it might be most useful if Ivan, Phil and the other proposers compared notes and priorities. For now I'd just add: let's not wait until the WG is chartered before clarifying usecases - the lack of these may be why there's apparently disagreement amongst the works primary advocates on what is in vs out of scope. cheers, Dan On Tue, 4 May 2021 at 14:53, Phil Archer <phil.archer@gs1.org> wrote: > Hi all, > > I was offline over the weekend and yesterday and so have not engaged in > this conversation so far. It's now spread across two separate threads in my > inbox, one public (this one), one private, plus a lot of Tweets starting > with https://twitter.com/danbri/status/1388440913941352448 > > We see this work as very worthwhile. It is increasingly relevant as GS1 > has its own working group on digital signatures and as GS1 moves towards > semantic data modelling and use of Linked Data: > > * to support digitally signed EPCIS event data (our supply chain > event data standard) > * to support digitally signed master data (expressed using terms > from the GS1 Web vocabulary), so that anyone can know whether Linked > Data markup about a product was actually signed (and authorised) by > the brand owner - and that nothing else has been added / removed to that > data > * to support digitally signed transaction data when EDI transactions > align with a semantic approach, as we're starting to see in the > proof-of-concept work on digital receipts > * to support verifiable credentials for licences of GCPs, keys etc. > - and eventually to provide robustness when we use VCs to provide > trustable evidence of connectedness on a chain of custody or ownership, > to enable trusted data sharing beyond 1-up/1-down. > * We would also like to be able to sign the Linkset you get back > from a GS1 Digital Link resolver, such as > https://id.gs1.org/01/9506000134352?linkType=all. The underlying data is > JSON but it will soon have an HTTP Link header to the context file to make > it JSON-LD. > > Those bullet pints were written by my colleague Mark Harrison and me, and > we used the terms 'Linked Data' and 'semantic' (although not Semantic Web). > Neither of us used the term RDF. > > Both Mark and I are perfectly well aware that LD is an application of RDF. > When we talk to our constituency of manufacturers, retailers and supply > chain operators, we use the term Linked Data where necessary (upper case L > and D). But we also use the phrase "links to other sources of data"; > linksets; link relation types, decentralized data, and, occasionally, > knowledge graphs. I know that the Linkset cited above, even as JSON-LD, is > not a Knowledge Graph. I also know that a Web page about a jar of jam is > not a Digital Twin. Guess what the jam maker calls it? When you see a 2d > barcode on your electronic boarding pass you probably think it's a QR code. > Ha! You idiot. I mean, really, how could you not recognise an Aztec code > when you see one. The finder pattern is completely different!! (sic). > > So yes, as we all know, it’s a mess, made messier my marketing. But it's > also evolution and human nature. RDF (as Dan's pinned tweet at > https://twitter.com/danbri/status/1386993437472432128 reminds us) is 23 > years old. Of course it's just the term RDF that's 23 years old. > Entity-relationship diagrams are a lot older. > > I would like to suggest an expansion of Ivan's proposed line: > > A terminological note: in what follows in this charter, and in the > terminology to be used by the Working Group, the term “Linked Data” is used > as a synonym to “RDF”. > > To something along the lines of: > > The term 'Linked Data' was originally defined in 2006 (@@@ link to > https://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData.html@@@), however, this was > never a formal definition and the term's use has evolved over time. These > days it can encompass resolvable URI schemes other than HTTP (notably > Decentralized Identifiers) and may be used informally as a general term for > any set of facts linked over the Web. Nevertheless, the work proposed here > necessarily focuses specifically on the underlying RDF technology. For this > reason in what follows in this charter, and in the terminology to be used > by the Working Group, the term “Linked Data” is used largely as a synonym > for “RDF”. > > Where I think I seem to have more sympathy than some with Dan's original > commentary, is the issue of a fixed/signed dataset containing links to > external sources of data and definitions that are not under the signee's > control. That is, if my signed RDF dataset includes data expressed using > schema:Product, and the definition of schema:Product changes, what value > does my signature have now? This is an issue that I think the WG will need > to address - that is, we'll need to set a boundary on what should and > should not be inferred by the presence of whatever crypto doo-hickey > surrounds the data. IMO, it seems clear that we cannot sign the meaning. > > And there's the irony. We can't sign the semantics in a Semantic Web > dataset unless we also retrieve all externally-referenced sources and sign > an immutable local copy of those as well (I'm really hoping no one thinks > that's a good idea ☹ ) > > As for use cases, there will be a UCR. We (GS1) will have more to say on > that of course, as will others. In the meantime, I think that the explainer > document provides a pretty good overview of the kind of problem that the WG > is being set. > > Phil Archer > Director, Web Solutions, GS1 > https://www.gs1.org > > Meet GS1 Digital Link Developers at > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/gs1-digital-link-developers > > https://philarcher.org > +44 (0)7887 767755 <07887%20767755> > @philarcher1 > Skype: philarcher > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> > Sent: 03 May 2021 15:40 > To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> > Cc: Aidan Hogan <aidhog@gmail.com>; Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>; > Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>; Phil Archer <phil.archer@gs1.org>; > Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine@w3.org>; Ramanathan Guha < > guha@google.com>; semantic-web <semantic-web@w3.org> > Subject: Re: Chartering work has started for a Linked Data Signature > Working Group @W3C > > Dan, > > Trying to move things ahead I have created two different pull requests: > > https://github.com/w3c/lds-wg-charter/pull/65 with Preview < > https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/lds-wg-charter/pull/65.html> : > https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/lds-wg-charter/pull/65.html > Diff: > https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/lds-wg-charter/65/7ace91f...38507c3.html > > > https://github.com/w3c/lds-wg-charter/pull/66 with > Preview: > https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/lds-wg-charter/pull/66.html > Diff: > https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/lds-wg-charter/66/7ace91f...e306629.html > > > The first is a minimal change: it just adds a sentence on the LD/RDF > equivalence (plus incorporates a separate proposal by Andy to rename one of > the deliverables). The second is a maximal change in that in uses the term > RDF uniformly everywhere (including the name of the WG). > > At this point I am not sure which of the two changes are better, in view > of we said about the problem with the term "Linked Data". I expect that, > apart from the exact wording, the first version is not controversial; I do > expect some problems with the second version, in view of the differences > among communities. But I want to get the discussions to continue on > concrete versions rather than generalities. > > However, Dan, I also tried to find the quotes you criticized, like > > > ...W3C isn’t helping itself with the “this secures the authenticity and > integrity of the web of linked data” hype. > > ...secure the integrity and authenticity of the fast growing web of > linked data > > and I did not find those (I would agree that, if they were there, we would > need to reduce hype). Either I really have to get my glasses changed or we > are not looking at the same document… > > Cheers > > Ivan > > > > > > On 3 May 2021, at 15:25, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org <mailto: > ivan@w3.org> > wrote: > > > > > On 3 May 2021, at 14:54, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org > <mailto:danbri@danbri.org> > wrote: > > On Mon, 3 May 2021 at 10:06, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org > <mailto:ivan@w3.org> > wrote: > > > (For info: the charter[1] and the related > explainer text[2] has changed recently following some Github discussions.) > > Hi Dan, > > Thanks a lot for your thoughts. > > I am perfectly aware of the naming issues around > RDF vs. Linked Data. Naming has evolved over the years, and the community > was not consistent in using one term or the other. There are communities > whose members frown (to say the least) when they hear the term "RDF" and > then happily use Linked Data. > > > Are you or W3M concerned that they would not support or > join this group if they knew it was solely devoted to solving problems with > RDF graph and dataset structures? > > > Yes, that too. But the problem is slightly different, I believe: I > am concerned about institutions not realizing that when we talk about RDF > Graphs and Datasets, those are the same as what they know as Linked Data > and Linked Data Sets (emphasis on 'what they know as'!) > > > > > We have named a standard JSON-LD (i.e., JSON > Linked Data) although the right terminology would have been JSON-RDF or > something like that, because JSON-LD is orthogonal to the Linked Data > principles that you refer to. RDF Graphs are created routinely that do > fully abide to the aspirations of Linked Data, but they are never referred > to that way. I am sure there are other examples. So yes, it is messy. > > > Yes, a mess! > > > However, it is not the job of this charter, or the > proposed Working Group, to clean up this particular mess. I would propose > to agree that, for the purpose of this charter and WG, the terms RDF and > Linked Data are interchangeable; this is certainly the way the WG intends > to pursue its work. > > > Affectionately and with respect: you are not making any > sense! There is no WG, only a messy sketch of a possible charter. The WG > cannot intend anything until the W3C AC approves a WG, and the intentions > of the WG will depend upon who the charter inspires to support it, and > which Members put people on the group. > > > Dan, I know that, and you perfectly know I do:-) We are discussing > about the way this WG would avoid this quagmire. As I wrote below, to make > it clear I would propose to put this into the charter very clearly so that > the AC knows what it votes on. > > > > As always, we are in a squeeze here. > > If the WG is described too boringly, it won’t get enough > support, members or AC votes to happen. > > If it is described too flamboyantly - such as the current > and implausible suggestion that it will secure the integrity and > authenticity of the fast growing web of linked data, you will get more > members, support and attention —- but at the expense of vastly > overpromising and seeding a WG dynamic that may struggle to agree on the > “obvious to the charter’s authors” anticipated designs. > > My advice is to turn the dial towards boring; if the > proposed work is useful the usecases will shine through. > > On the naming choice - if the draft WG charter is > describing a group that W3C leadership expect to use the terms “RDF” and > “Linked Data” interchangeably, W3C should respect the time and attention of > its AC, the future chair(s) and Members by putting that working assumption > more prominently in the document. > > > This is exactly what I proposed at the end of my mail! We seem to > agree on this, don't we? > > > > To further narrow down the discussion, let us also > concentrate on what this charter proposes to do. It proposes to provide a > standard for the canonicalization of, and to calculate a hash for, an RDF > Graph or an RDF Dataset. (There are some additional, say, "engineering" > issues like how to express the algorithms and their result in RDF, but that > is, comparatively, minor.) That is it. > > > This is an occasionally useful tool to have in the > toolkit, but only a small piece of a larger ecosystem. > > > And we do not aim at anything higher. I (and those who are > co-authors of this charter) happen to believe this is an important tool in > the ecosystem. > > > > > As a result, although all the questions you raise > are absolutely valid and to be solved at some point, I suggest, they must > be kept entirely out of scope for this particular Working Group. (E.g., as > Gregg said in his answer, hashing/signing is done on the RDF Dataset, i.e., > the triples and triples only, and it is oblivious to the other datasets > referred from it). We all want to avoid a "RIF-like 5 year slog". > > > What does it mean to sign a dataset that consists entirely > of either hashing-artifact bnode labels, or other people’s URIs? (for > entities, or for vocab terms i.e. types, properties etc.). > > > I am sorry, I do not understand the question... > > > > The use of the phrase “Linked Data” suggests that their > being URIs is relevant to the meaning of the signed data. Specifically if I > assert that entity e-1234 is of type s:PermittedApplication, why would > anybody care to sign just the instance data without also doing some record > keeping w.r.t. how —- at that moment —- the xyz: folks defined that type? > > > Without also noting the content of schemas it is hard to > know what are the conditions under which the instance data might be > considered true. Signing just the instance parts of the Linked Data (aka > rdf) doesn’t tell us what the signer meant, since it’s literally just a > bunch of URIs. > > This would be clearer if the the type was called > s:a1251b5342g3421 instead of “PermittedApplication”. > > > Dan, with respect: you are raising questions that are only > relevant for the original "Linked Data" paradigm and I think we agree that, > as far as this WG is concerned, we should make it clear in the charter why > the proposal is not to use that term for more than good-old bare RDF. In > other words, these questions are not in the planned scope of the WG. > > As for "why would anybody care": we did try to collect a number of > use cases in: > > https://w3c.github.io/lds-wg-charter/explainer.html#usage > > > > The bnode canonicalization algo is a nice thing to have > but W3C isn’t helping itself with the “this secures the authenticity and > integrity of the web of linked data” hype. > > > We can try to reduce the hype, but some level is necessary to > place the work of the WG in some general context. > > If this discussion gets to an equilibrium point, I am happy to > create a github PR where the fine details and wording can be discussed > further. > > Cheers > > Ivan > > > > Let us concentrate on how we make the charter text > clearer and avoid creating a wrong expectations. > > I believe that replacing the term "Linked Data" to > "RDF" everywhere in the text is not a good solution: that would alienate > some communities that, in fact, use these technologies but whose mindset > has been conditioned to use the term "Linked Data" and, at the same time, > look at the term "RDF" with suspicion. If we do such a change, we may risk > loosing them. > > In my view the cleanest way would be to make it > clear, either in the charter text, or the explainer, that we consider these > terms, for the purposes of this Working Group, as synonyms. Additionally, > we may also want to list some problems whose solutions are explicitly out > of scope (although we have to have a clear set of terms for those). I would > be pleased to hear more suggestions. The charter is still in developments, > ie, this is the time to do it! > > Thanks > > Ivan > > > [1] https://w3c.github.io/lds-wg-charter/ > [2] > https://w3c.github.io/lds-wg-charter/explainer.html > > > > On 1 May 2021, at 12:27, Dan Brickley < > danbri@danbri.org <mailto:danbri@danbri.org> > wrote: > > > I have concerns. If I had had more time I > would have written a shorter email. > > > > Starting from the top - > > Is “Linked Data” in the group name serving > as a synonym for RDF? > > Are there in-scope usecases for non-RDF > content? eg property graphs? RIF? Microformats? Plain XML, JSON? > > Does saying “Linked Data” exclude any RDF > practices deemed insufficiency “Linked”? > > The charter cites > > http://webdatacommons.org/structureddata/#toc3 in support of the > vague/ambiguous claim that “ The deployment of Linked Data < > https://www.w3.org/standards/semanticweb/data> is increasing at a rapid > pace <http://webdatacommons.org/structureddata/#toc3> ”, yet the citation > points to a document focussed on approaches which in various ways go > against “Linked Data” orthodoxy, narrowly conceived. > > The webdatacommons report covers > Microdata, RDFa, JSON-LD, and even Microformats; the latter effort has long > distanced itself from RDF, Linked Data and so on. The others, as published > in the public Web, are very commonly found embedded in containing documents > (or even injected via Javascript into a running webplatform document > object), and being used as standalone bnode-heavy descriptions rather than > fragmentary pieces of hypertext RDF. > > A particular problem with calling the > group “Linked Data” is the expectation that the various (and contested) > publishing practices associated with the Linked Data slogan will get > tangled up in the technical work. > > For example, the Linked Data community > emphasises public data, often but not always “Linked Open Data”, and has a > strong bias towards RDF being published in a form such that all mentioned > entities are described with a URI. It also has a bias toward those URIs > being http(s)-dereferencable, with the resulting document containing > additional RDF statements pertaining directly or indirectly to the entity > the URI is considered to identify. Arcane rules regarding http redirect > codes and the use of #-based identifiers for non-webplatform entities are > also an important element of the post-2006 Linked Data tradition. > > By proposing to name the group “Linked > Data” W3C risks embedding these contested design preferences in the > technical work, while justifying the WG as impactful using the large scale > adoption of practices bases on json-ld, microdata, rdfa which actively make > different design choices from those implicitly endorsed by this naming > choice. > > Specifically, Schema.org < > http://schema.org/> using these formats is on millions of sites (eg > report led by webdatacommons), in large part by making the explicit choice > to make things easier for publishers, e.g. by allowing them to write markup > meaning roughly “the Country whose name is Paris” rather than following > Linked Data supposed best practice of > simply using a well known URI for the entity, such as > http://dbpedia.org/resource/Paris (which > would involve publishers finding out the mosg currently fashionable URI for > every entity they mention). Signing data that mostly consists of dangling > references to files on other people’s websites may be a solved mathematical > problem, but it is new territory in social, policy, workflow, ecosystem and > other ways. If W3C values such an endeavour it should be realistic in terms > of staff resources assigned, and timelines. This is not a “quick win” > project. > > > The chartering issue is that “Linked Data” > is a broad marketing euphemism for RDF that emphasises some but not all of > its strengths, such as the ease of data merging across loosely coupled > systems. But it is not a technical term or a W3C standard as such. > > > > If this is effectively an RDF > canonicalization WG there are other issues to discuss, such as its impact > on expectations around schema evolution, linking, and security. > > Without being exhaustive, ... > > Would it apply to schemas published at > http: URIs or only https: URIs? > > 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? > > Is there an expectation that > schema/ontology publishing practice would need to change to accommodate > these scenarios? > > 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? > > 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 not discuss the role of > schema/ontology definitions in all this? > > For concrete example of why 24 months > looks ambitious: > > The examples in > https://w3c-ccg.github.io/security-vocab/ > { "@context": [" > https://w3id.org/security/v1", > "http://json-ld.org/contexts/person.jsonld"] > "@type": "Person", "name": "Manu Sporny", "homepage": " > http://manu.sporny.org/", "signature": { "@type": "GraphSignature2012", > "creator": "http://manu.sporny.org/keys/5", "signatureValue": > "OGQzNGVkMzVmMmQ3ODIyOWM32MzQzNmExMgoYzI4ZDY3NjI4NTIyZTk=" } } > > > > This uses the following json-ld context: > > > http://json-ld.org/contexts/person.jsonld > > > ...which currently maps the term “Person” > in the instance data to foaf:Person, which is a schema we have published in > the FOAF project since ~ May 2000 or so, evolving the definition in place. > We used to PGP sign the RDFS RDF/XML files btw; I am not entirely against > signing and RDF! Nobody used it though. > > From person.jsonld above, > > > { > "@context": > { > "Person": " > http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/Person",... > > The current English definition of > foaf:Person says “ The Person <http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/#term_Person> > class represents people. Something is a Person < > http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/#term_Person> if it is a person. We don't > nitpic about whether they're alive, dead, real, or imaginary”. > Its rdf/xml (“Linked Data”) definition > says, amongst other things, that it is owl:equivalentClass to schema:Person. > Do we want a spec that cares about whether > the context file is served over http? That cares if the dependency on FOAF > is silently switched out, or whether the FOAF Person type’s “Linked Data” > stated equivalence to > http://schema.org/Person gets updated, > e.g. to use https://schema.org <https://schema.org/> and/or to converge > the written definitions which set the meaning of what it is to say that > something is a foaf:Person or schema:Person. > > These are all fascinating issues but I > would be astonished if the work gets done on the proposed schedule. The > very idea of Linked Data puts these URI-facilitated connections between RDF > graphs at its core. To omit discussion of their consequences in the charter > is odd. For example, when is one the “authenticity and integrity” of one > serialized / published graph dependent on that of another that it > mentions/references/uses? > > I am not against this work, but the draft > charter feels really off somehow. > > RDF with lots of blank nodes is known to > be a bit annoying to consume, but easier to publish. The general sections > of the charter make sweeping and grand claims about the utility of the > proposed standards, and justify that with phrases like “authenticity and > integrity of the data” and references to the adoption of json-ld, > microdata and rdfa in public web content. > > The usecases most explicitly listed are > however largely from rather different perspective - a lot of blockchainy > transactional scenarios, some frankly blueskies but intriguing: > > “ For example, anchoring an RDF Dataset > that expresses a land deed to a Distributed Ledger (aka blockchain) can > establish a proof of existence in a way that does not depend on a single > point of failure, such as a local government office“ > > ... which echoes TimBL’s old > https://www.w3.org/Talks/WWW94Tim/ > > > I do not want to see a repeat of the > JSON-LD 1.0 vs 1.1 debacle, in which the massive success of Schema.org < > http://schema.org/> ’s use of JSON-LD 1.0 in the public Web was used to > persuade the W3C AC to launch a Working Group focussed on just those > aspects of the technology (contexts) which don’t work well for the web > scale search, and which didn’t address the needs of the project that had > been uses to justify the WG. As discussed elsewhere this week, that effort > resulted in W3C marking as superseded/abandoned the very technology > (JSON-LD 1.0) that we at Schema.org <http://schema.org/> were proud to > have helped to success, and which we now can’t even reliably cite as a > stable web standard. > > If this WG is addressing needs around RDF > for blockchains, or supporting software to compare, check and maybe diff > RDF graphs, the charter should be clearer about this limited scope. > > The charter opens as follows: > > “ There are a variety of established use > cases, such as Verifiable Credentials <https://www.w3.org/TR/vc-data-model> > , the publication of biological and pharmaceutical data, consumption of > mission critical RDF vocabularies, and others, that depend on the ability > to verify the authenticity and integrity of the data being consumed (see > the use cases <https://w3c.github.io/lds-wg-charter/explainer.html#usage> > for more examples).” > > Currently the charter only alludes wavily > to a “variety of established use cases”, and cites its specific “use cases” > for “more”. The established ones also should be explicitly listed and > analyzed to make sure they also motivate the proposed specific technical > agenda, which is highly focussed on technicalities around bnode-labeling in > RDF data. > > For each of these usecases we should ask, > amongst other things, whether signing the raw bits might work, and if not, > how much additional surrounding information is needed - eg base URI, > referenced schemas/ontologies, json-ld contexts, GRDDL transformes; and > whether the reference-tracing recurses or not. And why. > > Sorry for the long note. I just don’t want > to see another RIF-like 5 year slog happen because a cloud of similar ideas > was mistaken for a shared standards-making agenda. > > Cheers, > > Dan > > (Sent from my personal account but with a > danbri@google.com <mailto:danbri@google.com> hat on) > > On Tue, 6 Apr 2021 at 11:26, Ivan Herman < > ivan@w3.org <mailto:ivan@w3.org> > wrote: > > > Dear all, > > the W3C has started to work on a > Working Group charter for Linked Data Signatures: > > > https://w3c.github.io/lds-wg-charter/index.html > > The work proposed in this Working > Group includes Linked Data Canonicalization, as well as algorithms and > vocabularies for encoding digital proofs, such as digital signatures, and > with that secure information expressed in serializations such as JSON-LD, > TriG, and N-Quads. > > The need for Linked Data > canonicalization, digest, or signature has been known for a very long time, > but it is only in recent years that research and development has resulted > in mathematical algorithms and related implementations that are on the > maturity level for a Web Standard. A separate explainer document: > > > https://w3c.github.io/lds-wg-charter/explainer.html > > provides some background, as well > as a small set of use cases. > > The W3C Credentials Community > Group[1,2] has been instrumental in the work leading to this charter > proposal, not the least due to its work on Verifiable Credentials and with > recent applications and development on, e.g., vaccination passports using > those technologies. > > It must be emphasized, however, > that this work is not bound to a specific application area or > serialization. There are numerous use cases in Linked Data, like the > publication of biological and pharmaceutical data, consumption of mission > critical RDF vocabularies, and others, that depend on the ability to verify > the authenticity and integrity of the data being consumed. This Working > Group aims at covering all those, and we hope to involve the Linked Data > Community at large in the elaboration of the final charter proposal. > > We welcome your general > expressions of interest and support. If you wish to make your comments > public, please use GitHub issues: > > > https://github.com/w3c/lds-wg-charter/issues > > A formal W3C Advisory Committee > Review for this charter is expected in about six weeks. > > [1] > https://www.w3.org/community/credentials/ > [2] https://w3c-ccg.github.io/ > > > ---- > Ivan Herman, W3C > Home: > http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ > mobile: +33 6 52 46 00 43 > <+33%206%2052%2046%2000%2043> > ORCID ID: > https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 > > > > > > ---- > Ivan Herman, W3C > Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ > mobile: +33 6 52 46 00 43 > <+33%206%2052%2046%2000%2043> > ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 > > > > > > ---- > Ivan Herman, W3C > Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ > mobile: +33 6 52 46 00 43 <+33%206%2052%2046%2000%2043> > ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 > > > > > > ---- > Ivan Herman, W3C > Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ > mobile: +33 6 52 46 00 43 <+33%206%2052%2046%2000%2043> > ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 > > CONFIDENTIALITY / DISCLAIMER: The contents of this e-mail are > confidential and are not to be regarded as a contractual offer or > acceptance from GS1 (registered in Belgium). > If you are not the addressee, or if this has been copied or sent to you in > error, you must not use data herein for any purpose, you must delete it, > and should inform the sender. > GS1 disclaims liability for accuracy or completeness, and opinions > expressed are those of the author alone. > GS1 may monitor communications. > Third party rights acknowledged. > (c) 2020. >
Received on Tuesday, 4 May 2021 14:03:35 UTC