Closed PatStLouis closed 5 months ago
What will its relationship be with the other contexts: https://test.uncefact.org/vocabulary/untp/cc/ca-context.jsonld https://test.uncefact.org/vocabulary/untp/dpp/dpp-context.jsonld
IMO one UNTP context is enough (plenty!)
Discussion comments: We version data models, context files at the granularity of the thing (unless implementation lessons teach us something new).
From Phil as an example https://ref.gs1.org/gs1/vc/party-context/ https://ref.gs1.org/gs1/vc/party-context/1.0.0/ https://ref.gs1.org/gs1/vc/party-context/1.1.0/
IMO we should be more liberal merging PRs. Especially on this, which we know is just pathfinding and will likely be overwritten by tool exports. Rapid iterations, please. Merge.
Addresses some discussions in issue:
109
@zachzeus @nissimsan I added the base objects for the CC credential and a suggestion to remove the UNTP prefix for the types as this is now defined by the spec/vocab. If we prefer to keep the prefix it can be added back.
Main goal is to add placeholders for the CC stuff since it's what I'm working on. I also suggested an alphabetical order for the defined types and creating url links at the top of the context so we don't have to paste the complete url everywhere.
What is the long term goal for this context?
What will its relationship be with the other contexts: https://test.uncefact.org/vocabulary/untp/cc/ca-context.jsonld https://test.uncefact.org/vocabulary/untp/dpp/dpp-context.jsonld