#343: Verifiable Credentials Data Model 1.0
Discussions
2019-04-03
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.
2019-05-08
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
OpenedFeb 11, 2019
こんにちはTAG!
I'm requesting a TAG review of:
Further details (optional):
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):