#343: Verifiable Credentials Data Model 1.0

Visit on Github.

Opened Feb 11, 2019

こんにちはTAG!

I'm requesting a TAG review of:

Further details (optional):

  • Relevant time constraints or deadlines: Group charter ends 31 March 2019, aiming to go to CR by early March.
  • I have read and filled out the Self-Review Questionnare on Security and Privacy. We completed the earlier PING version of this questionnaire and are almost done updating it to align with your new questionnaire. We will update this issue with the pointer when that is complete.
  • I have reviewed the TAG's API Design Principles

You should also know that...

This specification (and the working group) was specifically restricted, in the charter, to only be about a data model and one or more syntactic representations of that data model. We are not allowed to provide any normative answers to any questions regarding protocols or APIs that may use this data model, although we are happy to informally convey expectations held by the majority of the group.

We'd prefer the TAG provide feedback as (please select one):

  • open issues in our Github repo for each point of feedback
  • open a single issue in our Github repo for the entire review
  • leave review feedback as a comment in this issue and @-notify [github usernames]

Discussions

2019-04-03

Minutes

Hadley: There are a bunch of issues here; the scope of the WG's charter suggests a pure data model, but there is nothing about how the rest of the infrastructure works. I'm curious how this fits into the web. Travis had a bunch of questions, and especially in particular about the benefits over a widely deployed DID infrastructure. Whether or not this is something we need to deal with.

There are some use cases that make sense; a claim which is verifiable. Not sure if this solves a bunch of unsolved problems that exist. Would require market traction for this to work.

The issues Travis raised are quite valid, the group suggests it is out of scope. Would like to discuss this a bit more next week though. They have a list of implementors, none of which are browser vendors.

2019-05-01

Minutes

Dan: I'll move this to next week

2019-05-08

Minutes

Hadley: ...not helping with things like specific use cases... can we bump...

Dan: I've also been concerned that anything involving blockchain isn't necessarily sustainable. And I've fed back on the user stories...

Hadley: It's also not necessarily great for users in developing countries

[bumped to f2f