Closed PieterKas closed 1 year ago
How about UserInfoVC? I agree with you but also want to keep it short ;)
USerInfo VC will work - the connection will be clearer.
We can use "UserInfo VC" in the text. But I would prefer we keep the token in the protocol to "UserInfoCredential", for consistency with things like "UniversityDegreeCredential" that are used in the base VC spec. Maybe @Sakurann has more context on what people do in practice here?
The reason I was thinking of using UserInfoVC instead is that there is already an UserInfo Response that contains a set of claims and I (perhaps incorrectly) had this mapped to a UserInfo credential in my mind. Calling it UserInfoVC makes it clear that it is the VC format of the UserInfo claims.
There may be other credentialtypes (even in the decentralised world, there is quite a proliferation of formats), so being more specific in the label may be useful. It also makes for easier reading - I kept reading about UserInfoCredential, and then about verifiable credential and had to stop and remind myself that these are the same (this last point may be just a quirk of my mental processes).