Section 4 diagram includes "amend claim"

[bumblefudge]

but word "amend" doesn't appear in VC Data model. might be worth doing a quick prune of any mention of amend from both diagram and any use-cases where it is essential 😬 .

(on call with Joe as I type this)

[Sakurann]

yes, please remove what is not in the vc-data-model to prevent confusion and be consistent with the normative specs.

[OR13]

I suggest removing this, and allowing it to be handled in "decentralized extensions".

[iherman]

The issue was discussed in a meeting on 2023-02-07

• no resolutions were taken

View the transcript

#### 1.4. Section 4 diagram includes "amend claim" (issue vc-use-cases#124) _See github issue [vc-use-cases#124](https://github.com/w3c/vc-use-cases/issues/124)._ > *Brent Zundel:* section 4 diagram. **Joe Andrieu:** I proposed at TPAC that we get rid of it. There are use cases that require referring to a VC in a definitive way, and that is underspecified. A VC may not have an ID.. … There is a desire to amend things. you can't amend something that is signed, but issuing an amended VC that links to the VC being amended could be possible, but maybe we get rid of it.. **Manu Sporny:** the data model currently supports amending today. … the way you amend attributes about the subject is to re-issue.. … but what happens if you want to amend the whole credential, you can add the previous credential as one of the credential subjects of a new credential. … changing what a previous VC says is troubling and much harder to do.. **Joe Andrieu:** the first one, that's one way to interpret amending, I think it's just another statement. but the second method, including or referencing a VC to amend it is valid.. > *Orie Steele:* Note the "extendsCredential" property of [https://w3c-ccg.github.io/traceability-vocab/#GS1KeyCredential](https://w3c-ccg.github.io/traceability-vocab/#GS1KeyCredential). **Joe Andrieu:** I don't think we have any language that uses that pattern. There is a desire to amend, and coming up with a way to sdo that in the implementation guide would be good. > *Orie Steele:* For the meeting notes: [https://ref.gs1.org/gs1/vc](https://ref.gs1.org/gs1/vc). > *Juan Caballero:* +1. > *Juan Caballero:* to implementation guide rather than normative. **Manu Sporny:** one thing that we may want to consider is speaking against certain types of amending because of the technical difficulty. … changing a previously issued VC in the right way could be very complex. Maybe we add language about re-issuing, that would be best, but issuing a credential that changes another one is harder. We should tell people this is a fraught path before they go too far.. > *Brent Zundel:* Phil-ASU: I agree with Manu. Is this a back door for amending an expiry or revocation? Is there a circumstance where re-=issuing is not viable?. **Joe Andrieu:** The best example I can think of is if you have a VC that is entered into an official record, but you needed to amend it. You can make a new VC that says I'm amending that thing and enter that into the record.. … the ability to dispute is much broader. Amending is the same issuer.. … typos could be an easy amend, MS instead of BS degree. This is an interesting use case because it introduces a new party to the pantheon. not necessarily the issuer, holder, verifier, or even subject. I don't want to advocate for a dispute action, just wanted to point out it is different from amending.. … It is confusing and we should add language to help that confusion.. > *Phillip Long:* restricting amending to the original issuer makes sense.. > *Phillip Long:* Anthony Camilleri. **Manu Sporny:** +1 Joe and Phil. Something came up yesterday in VC-EDU. One of the use cases was they wanted the wallet providers to extend the lifetime of issued credentials. The VC would be issued, then wanted the wallet provider to add something to the diploma that would refresh it for the next 40 years. Maybe we can get the person who spoke about that involved.. **Kerri Lemoie:** His name was Anthony Camilleri. We should talk to him. This is how they want to make sure the cache hasn't expired. We should talk to them more about it.. > *Juan Caballero:* new tracking issue. > *Juan Caballero:* for future use-case. > *Juan Caballero:* (and Anthony's use case sounds more like `refreshService` than `amend` to me?). **Kristina Yasuda:** in terms of this issue, could we remove amend claim from the diagram, but add some language about the considerations we've just discussed?. … what do we do about this diagram. > *Manu Sporny:* +1 to remove, and keep another issue around to document stuff around "amending". > *Dave Longley:* +1 to remove. **Joe Andrieu:** I support removing, but we should put a proposal and put it in the minutes. It starts off on the wrong foot because you don't amend data integrity proofs.. > *Kerri Lemoie:* name from EU Anthony Camilleri: [https://github.com/anthonycamilleri](https://github.com/anthonycamilleri). **Kristina Yasuda:** any objections to removing, while opening another issue about disputes, etc.?. > *Manu Sporny:* +1 to remove and new issue. **Kristina Yasuda:** I see +1 to remove and no objections.. … we need multiple issues, for amending, disputing, etc.. **Manu Sporny:** I'll do amending. **Joe Andrieu:** I'll do disputing. **Kerri Lemoie:** I'll do the education use case.

[jandrieu]

Closing as per VCWG discussion from last year.