W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > June 2016

Re: Data model spec okay for review

From: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 01:12:03 +0000
Message-ID: <CAM1Sok2uFwwEd=fpTqntNzunH6Pviwi_T7564wOziPrCBtWOWQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Daniel Burnett <danielcburnett@gmail.com>, Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>, Web Payments IG <public-webpayments-ig@w3.org>
I'd like to note that if we were able to provide scope for other
RDF Serialization Formats without undue negative impacts; we might reduce
pain-points (whilst potentially introducing others).

Think mandatory json-ld optional Turtle, etc. --> might be another way of
doing it.

serialization seems a bit like religion at times.  we all know something
about it from how we live or where we grew-up, but it's unfair to force
others to believe in the way we see the world if unnecessary to do so...
 often different books say similar things in different ways in anycase..

Tim.h.

On Sun, 19 Jun 2016 at 06:43 Daniel Burnett <danielcburnett@gmail.com>
wrote:

> http://opencreds.org/specs/source/claims-data-model/
>
> The data model specification has undergone major editorial surgery, mainly
> having to do with aligning all the new terminology.
>
> The document now more clearly distinguishes among an identity profile (the
> general term), the identity profile model (the generalized model the
> document defines), and an identity profile expression (a specific instance
> of the data model as represented in JSON, JSON-LD, or WebIDL).  Ditto for
> entity credentials.
>
> Known items remaining that I will work on tomorrow and/or Monday:
> - fix the JSON-LD examples and signatures to be closer to realistic
> - put in the proper reference for the use cases document
> - fix the terminology section where, for some reason I don't yet
> understand, the terms 'identity' and 'credential' are being included even
> though I believe I have erased them from the document as stand-alone terms.
>
> All feedback is welcome, but I would particularly like to know if I missed
> correcting any terms used in the text to our newly agreed upon versions.
>
> -- dan
>
>
Received on Sunday, 19 June 2016 01:12:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 July 2018 21:19:29 UTC