Dear Melvin, I believe the vocabulary is not consistent across implementations. For example if you look at c lightning there is no such command `describegraph` but there are the two commands `listnodes` and `listchannels` which should give the same information. For both I have attached a sample output at the end of the mail to demonstrate how the naming of the vocabulary differs.
Since the data of these commands is taken from the gossip store which stores the gossip messages I would suggest to take the vocabulary from the BOLT 07 which defines the gossip messages. Also this mailinglist is for protocol development and the spec should be the authorative source for naming: https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lightning-rfc/blob/master/07-routing-gossip.md There are more terms specified in other bolts which could be a basis for a vocabulary. I have created an overview by hand and made a Pull Request to the repository which has not been merged yet as it was the wish of the developers to have such a list to be extracted automatically. Still this the overview in that pull request could serve as a basis for such a vocabulary : https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lightning-rfc/pull/458 Now the example outputs from c-lightning we already that there are differences in naming. Take the identifier for a node for example: * BOLT07: node_id * LND: pub_key * clightning: nodeid example outputs: lighting-cli listnodes { "nodeid": "02396bf51e81f8f67eaca3652271b4fe8d3f57bedb9578af711606391c5c66760e", "alias": "PuraSloboda", "color": "68f442", "last_timestamp": 1548200218, "globalfeatures": "", "global_features": "", "addresses": [ { "type": "ipv4", "address": "144.136.223.22", "port": 9735 } ] } lightning-cli listchannels { "source": "03bb88ccc444534da7b5b64b4f7b15e1eccb18e102db0e400d4b9cfe93763aa26d", "destination": "0272045af48b9871013753f7cce1cf82ed80b97d669ca44709e01976a67df80adc", "short_channel_id": "559893:1912:0", "public": true, "satoshis": 47000, "message_flags": 0, "channel_flags": 1, "flags": 1, "active": true, "last_update": 1548332847, "base_fee_millisatoshi": 1000, "fee_per_millionth": 1, "delay": 144 } With kind regards Rene On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 1:21 PM Melvin Carvalho <melvincarva...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, 21 Jan 2019 at 14:11, René Pickhardt <r.pickha...@googlemail.com> > wrote: > >> Dear Melvin, >> >> have you looked into the W3C Payment Group? >> https://www.w3.org/TR/payment-request/ The entire field of semantic web >> kind of originated from W3C and they are working on a recommendation for >> browser vendors to enable a low level payment API. >> >> Also there is LightningJoule that builds on top of webln. While this is >> not an otology it goes implicitly in a similar direction (c.f.: >> https://github.com/wbobeirne/webln and in particular this discussion: >> https://github.com/wbobeirne/webln/issues/1 in which Will said that in >> his thoughts webln is different to the W3C Payment Group.) >> >> I am looking forward to see your progress with integrating Lightning to >> the semantic web! >> >> with kind regards Rene >> > > My first observation is these two data structures in lnd describe graph, > one for channels and one for nodes. These seem to be two fundamental > concepts in lightning. > > Channel > > { > "channel_id": "615605565348708353", > "chan_point": > "d8cfed73e0004fe1427d3045c5b20da0418f3cb803e8e35be48ee713aadbf56d:1", > "last_update": 1548330355, > "node1_pub": > "024a2e265cd66066b78a788ae615acdc84b5b0dec9efac36d7ac87513015eaf6ed", > "node2_pub": > "03e03c56bb540c36b9e77c2aea2bb6529b907ece6c1395228c05459af13d0e2a5c", > "capacity": "1000000", > "node1_policy": { > "time_lock_delta": 144, > "min_htlc": "1000", > "fee_base_msat": "1000", > "fee_rate_milli_msat": "1", > "disabled": false > }, > "node2_policy": { > "time_lock_delta": 144, > "min_htlc": "1000", > "fee_base_msat": "1000", > "fee_rate_milli_msat": "1", > "disabled": false > } > } > > Node > > { > "last_update": 1547380072, > "pub_key": > "0200072fd301cb4a680f26d87c28b705ccd6a1d5b00f1b5efd7fe5f998f1bbb1f1", > "alias": "OutaSpace", > "addresses": [ > { > "network": "tcp", > "addr": "46.163.78.93:9760" > }, > { > "network": "tcp", > "addr": "[2a01:488:66:1000:2ea3:4e5d:0:1]:9760" > }, > { > "network": "tcp", > "addr": "2dkobxxunnjatyph.onion:9760" > }, > { > "network": "tcp", > "addr": > "nzslu33ecbokyn32teza2peiiiuye43ftom7jvnuhsxdbg3vhw7w3aqd.onion:9760" > } > ], > "color": "#123456" > }, > > It would be useful to write a vocab for these and then document what they > mean. It would then be possible to add markup to an explorer to make it > self documenting. > > My first question is : are these terms consistent across different > implementations e.g. c-lightning, eclair ? > > >> >> >> On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 7:17 AM Melvin Carvalho <melvincarva...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi All >>> >>> I work on the solid project [1] and am very interested in the lightning >>> network. >>> >>> In particular, I am looking at trying to create an integration between >>> lightning (layer 2) and solid (layer 3? web layer?). >>> >>> The first step towards integration would be to port some of the >>> lightning concepts to the semantic web. This is done by creating an >>> ontology. >>> >>> Does anyone know of any existing work in this area. Alternatively, does >>> anyone have an interest to collaborate on an ontology? >>> >>> Best >>> Melvin >>> >>> [1] https://solid.mit.edu/ >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Lightning-dev mailing list >>> Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev >>> >> >> >> -- >> https://www.rene-pickhardt.de >> >> Skype: rene.pickhardt >> >> mobile: +49 (0)176 5762 3618 >> > -- https://www.rene-pickhardt.de Skype: rene.pickhardt mobile: +49 (0)176 5762 3618
_______________________________________________ Lightning-dev mailing list Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
