- From: Peter Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 06 May 2021 13:21:31 -0400
- To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Cc: semantic-web@w3.org
But I thought that the main idea behind the WG is to select a signing method for RDF / LD. That is, to make it impossible to use JCS by itself as the JSON-LD canonicalizer and be within the bounds of the recommendation. Of course, this certainly does not prevent the use of JCS to sign JSON- LD documents - it is just that this would not conform to the recommendation. peter On Thu, 2021-05-06 at 19:01 +0200, Ivan Herman wrote: > Peter, > > just to make it clear (and that was, I believe, Manu's intentions, > too). > > The WG charter does not, will not, shall not propose JCS as an > alternative; the proposed work is on the RDF abstract syntax. The > only thing we have to acknowledge is that there are communities out > there that do that, and we cannot ignore this. It does not have a > bearing on what the WG would do except, maybe, to be sure that it > does not make it actively _impossible_ for someone to follow that > route on a JSON-LD serialization of the RDF Data (although, to be > honest, I would not even know what we would do that would make that > impossible). > > Cheers > > Ivan
Received on Thursday, 6 May 2021 17:22:12 UTC