Block chain 2.0 technologies are emerging that are much more efficient and better optimised for specific use cases. It is putting a lot more tools in the toolbox. So it may be that some of these (particularly those looking to leverage cloud toolkits and modules, such as in AWS) will have the apparently native ability to support search fairly well.
However, that is not yet the situation. Many DB companies are looking to provide a relational (or other) database technology over the top of a block chain. The chain provides the distributed ledger technology across partners. The DB maintains an ingested clone (of sorts) of the chain data and provides the necessary search capability. The results can be validated directly on the chain.

regards,

Patrick

Patrick Curry
Director

British Business Federation Authority - BBFA Ltd
M: +44 786 024 9074
T: +44 1980 620606
patrick.curry@bbfa.info
www.bbfa.info – a not-for-profit, self-regulating body

On 14 Jul 2016, at 12:27, j stollman <stollman.j@gmail.com> wrote:

I am concerned that there may be an important misunderstanding about the power of blockchain in a large scale deployment with regards to query capability.

It is easy to add transactions of all kinds to the blockchain. It is harder to query the blockchain efficiently to get information out. The blockchain does store data, but it is not a database. It does not directly support indexed fields that make queries efficient and scalable. With crypto-currencies such as Bitcoin, all transactions are for anonymous, fungible, virtual assets (e.g., Bitcoins). But once the transactions become explicit, unique, assets (e.g., various identity attributes or consent receipts unique to particular websites or transactions), it becomes necessary to find individual needles in the haystack. And the latency for such searches degrades rapidly as the blockchain grows larger.

Because scalability and performance are merely assumed and not explicitly specified in our discussions, I wanted to point out that just because something can be added to a blockchain does not imply that it will be scalable and provide adequate performance. To assume this could lead to a lot of churn.

Thank you.

Jeff

---------------------------------

Jeff Stollman
stollman.j@gmail.com
1 202.683.8699

Truth never triumphs — its opponents just die out.

Science advances one funeral at a time.

Max Planck

On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 6:50 PM, James Hazard <james.g.hazard@gmail.com> wrote:

On the theme of Patient Consents, I put one of the documents that John suggested into modular format. The organization of the document follows the original, with meaningful names for the various sections based on my hunches. The names for roles are not yet meaningful, just placeholders.

Click "Document"

http://source.commonaccord.org/index.php?action=source&file=Wx/ca/ocrebonline/Templates/COG-OCREB_Consent/v2015-Jun-29/0.md

On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Eve Maler <eve.maler@forgerock.com> wrote:
http://kantarainitiative.org/confluence/display/BSC/2016-07+%28July+2016%29+Meetings#id-2016-07(July2016)Meetings-TuesdayJuly12

Attending: Thomas, Eve, Jim, Scott S, Don, Marc, Philippe, Thorsten, Ann, John W
The May 23-24 event at MIT, variously called Digital Contracts, Identities, and Blockchain and Digital Identities, Contracts, and Blockchain, had some notes as output. Here are relevant links:

Technical and Future Infrastructure track notes

Business track notes

Healthcare use cases track notes

IBM Open Blockchain white paper

Article on bootstrapping a bosses organization

Screenshot from Bart's presentation comparing "smart" and "legal" contracts (did his whole presentation get posted?)

CommonAccord intro presentation

CommonAccord site

CommonAccord Slack team invitation

For a candidate use case, Jim proposes: Patient consent, in a context of 3-4 countries – e.g., including France, Germany. Leverage the GA4GH (Global Alliance for Genomics and Health) and genetic research. Jim has been discussing this use case with Bart Suiches of Philips Blockchain Lab. Would this be about storing consents? The GA4GH folks have a committee that created a model data sharing consent form in CommonAccord. There's capacity for it to be signed.
Would the Consent Receipts work be able to handle a machine-readable representation? It might need to be extended. This would be a good use case for extensibility for that spec.
Culture might be the biggest barrier around consent – IRBs and equivalents would have trouble conceiving of consent as anything but a one-way door. John notes that there are six different ways to get approval to process data, and only one of them is consent. John recommends narrowing down this as a use case a bit, since it involves research and IRBs and such and takes it out of the full health regulatory environment (at least in the Canadian system). This is really a "health research" use case more than a "healthcare" use case, as it stands.
AI: John to share research consent templates with Jim/the group.
On Thursday, Scott will present a sample use case template into which we can fill use case content. Everybody should take the opportunity to get familiar with the linked material above, and start to think about their own use cases they'd like to collect.
Eve Maler
ForgeRock Office of the CTO | VP Innovation & Emerging Technology
Cell +1 425.345.6756 | Skype: xmlgrrl | Twitter: @xmlgrrl
ForgeRock Summits and UnSummits are coming to Sydney, London, and Paris!

_______________________________________________
DG-BSC mailing list
DG-BSC@kantarainitiative.org
http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-bsc

--
@commonaccord

_______________________________________________
DG-BSC mailing list
DG-BSC@kantarainitiative.org
http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-bsc

_______________________________________________
DG-BSC mailing list
DG-BSC@kantarainitiative.org
http://kantarainitiative.org/mailman/listinfo/dg-bsc