- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 6 May 2021 20:24:38 +0200
- To: Peter Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Cc: semantic-web@w3.org
—— Ivan Herman (Written on my iPad. Excuses for brevity and misspellings...) > On 6 May 2021, at 19:21, Peter Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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. The recommendation wouldn't talk about JCS. Ivan > > 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 18:24:47 UTC