Importance of serialization formats in facilitating Notary Cross-Verification

[els]

***From Miles:

One thing to bear in mind is that the actual serialization format
used
is not nearly as important as the semantic structure that can be
supported. Quite hard thing to get your head around anything without
a
specific format to use as an example, but in theory one 'abstract'
format can be supported in multiple 'serialization' formats, all
transformable into one another.

***

I just wanted to post this topic separately so that we can debate/
brainstorm it in more depth and as needed.

Basically, if we are envisioning "reporter applications" that offer
Notary Cross-Verification as a standard service (see Publishing
Platform -> Basic Reporter arrow @ http://tyaga.org/docs/pix/prowl_layers_20090405.jpg),
then the serialization format becomes **highly important**.

In argue to really argue this point out, I would like to see sample
code or applications that are able to reliably cross-verify
differently serialized but semantically equivalent copies of a
transaction record that is published and located through different
URLs.

On the other hand, if Notary Cross-Verification is not envisioned as a
desirable service, then I agree that the semantic structure is much
more important. In this case, the "om specs" could simply concentrate
on how to itemize transaction records into a "report".