search

w3c-ccg / citizenship-vocab

A vocabulary for asserting Verifiable Credentials related to citizenship status
https://w3c-ccg.github.io/citizenship-vocab/
Other
7 stars 3 forks source link

"name", "description", "Image" are defined by schema.org #11

Open OR13 opened 4 years ago

OR13 commented 4 years ago

Not sure how to reflect this... but ideally we should emphasize how useful these are, and how great it is that we are reusing schema.org :)

JSON-LD https://digitalbazaar.github.io/citizenship-vocab/contexts/citizenship-v1.jsonld HTML https://digitalbazaar.github.io/citizenship-vocab/

msporny commented 4 years ago

It has been suggested by @tplooker that we should consolidate those properties into the Verifiable Credentials v2 context. I'm supportive of doing that in the next revision.

I don't know how we can emphasize one of the core tenets of Linked Data -- vocabulary term reuse. :)

tplooker commented 4 years ago

how great it is that we are reusing schema.org :)

Yeap big +1 IMO its an education problem that we just need to work on as a community.

It has been suggested by @tplooker that we should consolidate those properties into the Verifiable Credentials v2 context

Yes I think they are core to the data model, happy to drive it just seeking advice on the best way to do it.

msporny commented 4 years ago

Yes I think they are core to the data model, happy to drive it just seeking advice on the best way to do it.

If added to the core Verifiable Credentials context, it will be a normative change to the Verifiable Credentials specification, requiring a 3-6 month W3C Process as it'll change implementations and implementation reports. This is why we didn't do it previously... it's not a light lift and we don't have consensus yet on this being the right approach for your goals of having universally renderable content.

That said, I'm personally supportive of the direction and happy to help where I can, I just want to make it very clear that it's not as difficult as getting a spec to REC at W3C, but it's far more difficult than just filing a couple of PRs. There is now a process for updating the VC Data Model spec via W3C CCG, so we should use that. Please review the new W3C VCWG charter:

https://www.w3.org/2020/01/vc-wg-charter.html

The W3C Process is here:

https://www.w3.org/2020/Process-20200915/#revised-rec-features

The steps would be:

  1. Propose additions to VC spec in CCG, gather feedback, revise proposal.
  2. Submit PRs to add those features, get approval from VCWG to merge.
  3. Perform horizontal review (3 months suggested) at W3C.
  4. Implement tests and ensure those tests have at least two conforming implementations.
  5. Perform the "W3C Revising a Recommendation" process with W3C Membership.
  6. Go through another IPR exclusion opportunity period (60 days, IIRC).
  7. Publish a new official global standard for VC (v1.1)

All of this could theoretically be done in as quickly as 90 days... but realistically, I would expect it to take 5 months from start to finish (which is way better than the 24 months it normally takes).

Fak3 commented 4 years ago

Related, more generic issue: https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-syntax/issues/361

TallTed commented 4 years ago

Since "given name, family name" were mentioned in the proposal of this work item, I think it worth a reminder to beware of (some of) the common programmer gotchas of names (which FOAF and schema.org both tried to handle, with mixed success, by including both vagaries and specifics). To wit --

dmitrizagidulin commented 4 years ago

@TallTed thank you for bringing up those links! Very important.