add credential lifecycle example from vc data model

[brentzundel]

this PR text the text from section 3.4 of the VC Data Model and moves it here, modulo some minor text changes to fit the context of the use cases document.

---

Preview | Diff

[TallTed]

This lifecycle is not a "User Task" and it certainly does not belong in that section.

I will continue to believe and assert that this lifecycle does not belong in this "Use Cases" document, but if the WG has decided it must be shoehorned in here, I strongly suggest that it be inserted as one of the following, in order of my preference and recommendation:

• as a top-level section, which I suggest should follow "7. User Sequences"
• as an Appendix, which I suggest should follow "B. Example Verifiable Credentials"
• as a second-level section, which I suggest should follow "7.2 How a Verifiable Credential Might Be Used"

[brentzundel]

@TallTed moved to their own section in 77889c6

@iherman I believe I have made the changes necessary to address your comments, please re-review

@jandrieu and @KDean-GS1 the preview and diff links are currently working

[iherman]

The issue was discussed in a meeting on 2024-04-24

• no resolutions were taken

View the transcript

#### 5.2. Move lifecycle section to Use Cases. (pr vc-data-model#1476) _See github pull request [vc-data-model#1476](https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1476)._ **Manu Sporny:** it seems some level of disagreement on PR #1476. _See github pull request [vc-use-cases#154](https://github.com/w3c/vc-use-cases/pull/154)._ **Brent Zundel:** two lifecycle sections in the spec was moved, the second life cycles was going to be incorporated into the use cases document. Moving the second section to that place seemed unnecessary. … David Chadwick noted there wasn't any ecosystem section in the spec but the current approach is not to include it and move forward. **Manu Sporny:** agrees we don't need the above sections. If something is missing we should have the discussion in the use cases document. **Ivan Herman:** wondering whether it's worth having an overview document for all the specs we've done. For an outsider coming in, it appears extremely messy. Some of the things moved to the use cases doc might better be in an overview doc. **Ted Thibodeau Jr.:** Agrees an overview doc is called for. Still doesn't make sense to TallTed to consider lifecycle as as use case. > *Ted Thibodeau Jr.:* +1 nobody coming when v3 or v4 is "current" is going to look to v1 to learn the lifecycle. **David Chadwick:** the arguments for removing it are spurious. But people who come to VCDM v2.0 without reading earlier versions because so many newbies are coming to the v2 fresh. … Value i leaving it in because there value for it in V1. **Manu Sporny:** maybe use cases is a temporary location for the lifecycle until we have an overview document. We have one from RWOT that may be usable. **Brent Zundel:** chair hat on -Brentz will do whatever the group wants to do. If we move forward would DavidC object? **David Chadwick:** no he would not object. > *Ivan Herman:* See [Example for a standards' Overview document for the OWL family](https://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-overview/).

[KDean-GS1]

This diagram isn't a lifecycle. The lifecycle of VC is defined by the transitions between the states "active", "suspended", and "revoked", which is not what the diagram shows.

Even if it did, I don't believe that the lifecycle belongs in this document. The lifecycle is derived from requirements; it is not, itself, a requirement.

I'll join next week's call to discuss further if there is time on the agenda.

[brentzundel]

@KDean-GS1 While I appreciate your opinion, this has already been discussed in the group https://www.w3.org/2017/vc/WG/Meetings/Minutes/2024-04-10-vcwg#section2-5 https://www.w3.org/2017/vc/WG/Meetings/Minutes/2024-04-24-vcwg#section5-2 where the group consensus was to move the section to this document.

While we hope there will be a better home for it in the future, e.g., in a VC Overview document, the VCWG determined that for now this is the best place for this content.

[jandrieu]

@brentzundel Unfortunately, I'm in agreement with @KDean-GS1 on this one.

This diagram is not only not a lifecycle (where does it start? where does it end?) it has multiple repeating stages (which do not repeat in reality) and several elements that are simply in error. Specifically, verification has no need to talk to a registry for verification.

Given that the diagram is both wrong and not a lifecycle diagram, I don't think it should be integrated.

What I agreed with in the VCWG call was simply that getting Use Case information out of the VCDM and into the use case document is good. However, this non-lifecycle diagram doesn't represent any sort of consensus, IMO.

[brentzundel]

I think I misunderstood. Is the objection just to the diagram?

[brentzundel]

@jandrieu @KDean-GS1 Is the objection you raise to the diagram (easily removed) or to the whole PR?

[jandrieu]

I believe this has been addressed with the new VC Overview document at https://github.com/w3c/vc-overview

I suggest we close here and take any concerns to the new repo.

@brentzundel Does that work for you?

[brentzundel]

Yes, now that the Overview doc exists, I believe this can be closed.