search

w3c / vc-wg-charter

Developing a new charter for the VC WG.
https://w3c.github.io/vc-wg-charter/
Other
3 stars 12 forks source link

rename a deliverable to "Verifiable Credential Proofs of Integrity 1.0" #87

Closed Sakurann closed 2 years ago

Sakurann commented 2 years ago

Suggest we rename a deliverable "Verifiable Credential Data Integrity 1.0" to "Verifiable Credential Proofs of Integrity 1.0"? It is very confusing that a current CCG document called "Data Integrity 1.0" is one of the documents in a family of specifications called "Verifiable Credential Data Integrity 1.0".

OR13 commented 2 years ago

I don't find the suggested change helpful.

Can you provide additional context?

Maybe relate this to JWTs so we can see why you think the name change is helpful.

This the way I see it.

  1. VCDM 2.0 a JSON Data Model for Credentials
  2. Verifiable Credential Data Integrity 1.0 - > VC-LD, VC-JWT

If you are trying to say "Data Integrity 1.0" implies "LD Only"... yea, i kinda agree with that.

I think a more natural grouping would be:

  1. VCDM 2.0 a JSON Data Model for Credentials
  2. VC-JWT
  3. VC-LD
brentzundel commented 2 years ago

I personally prefer data integrity over proofs of integrity, but would also not be opposed to this change.

I would also like to note that the name the next WG chooses to give to its normative deliverables does not necessarily need to be exactly the name as listed in the charter.

msporny commented 2 years ago

I don't find the suggested change helpful.

Agree, -1 to the change. I think it's coming from a place where there isn't an understanding of the history of how we ended up here and I'm concerned with moving forward with a change for the wrong reasons.

If you are trying to say "Data Integrity 1.0" implies "LD Only"... yea, i kinda agree with that.

Sorry, no, we specifically changed the name from "Linked Data Proofs/Signatures" to "Data Integrity" because you can use the Data Integrity specification to canonicalize and sign w/o using Linked Data anything (e.g., JCS + JwsBasedSignature). Data Integrity is a container format (really, an object annotation format that allows you to hang a proof value off of the object). That is, it is "a generalized way of protecting a credential". Really, it's a generalized mechanism for protecting any sort of object, we just happen to be focused on Verifiable Credentials in this WG.

There are three potential paths for protecting a credential:

So, -1 to changing the names above at this point in time.

I wouldn't be opposed to something like: "Securing Verifiable Credentials 1.0" or "Protecting Verifiable Credentials 1.0" -- and then list all the "container formats" and cryptosuites that we plan to work on to do so.

Sakurann commented 2 years ago

"Securing Verifiable Credentials 1.0" or "Protecting Verifiable Credentials 1.0" Sounds good.

quartzjer commented 2 years ago

@msporny

VC-JWP - a envelope-based format for protecting a VC using proofs (but not really, it's really about selective disclosure).

Just FYI, unlinkability is equally important as selective disclosure, and ZKPs are essential for that.

brentzundel commented 2 years ago

The associated PRs which reflects the consensus of the group has been merged. Closing this Issue.