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

Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> I would greatly appreciate a discussion of the possible flaws in that 
> document.  This discussion does not appear to be happening, which I find 
> worrisome.

Ok, then let's have this discussion, even if it takes weeks or months to come
to any sort of conclusion. I don't want any accusation that we didn't discuss
these things (even though variations of these discussions have happened in
other forums over the years).

I will assert that these sorts of discussions should happen in a W3C WG; as
that's the purpose of a W3C WG. That they're happening w/o involving the other
communities that have been using these specifications and technologies is

Before we have this discussion, however, I'd like to understand what a
resolution to the discussion would look like to you, Peter, Melvin, and Dan.
Specifically, if we note any issues that are of concern for Linked Data Proofs
in the document as issues (using language that you draft), and it's clear that
there is a path forward (or the feature could be dropped without endangering
the entire specification) would you be willing to move forward with the
document as an *input* to the WG?

-- manu

Manu Sporny -
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
blog: Veres One Decentralized Identifier Blockchain Launches

Received on Monday, 24 May 2021 14:37:13 UTC