- From: Nate Otto <nate@ottonomy.net>
- Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 09:56:25 -0700
- To: Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
- Cc: ba-standard@googlegroups.com
- Message-ID: <CAPk0ug=wMJC8wmgc4Wj5AWo-J1QwKyNzusGyFcg2WP6haYCG1w@mail.gmail.com>
Credentials Community Group, (cc: Badge Alliance Standard WG) Open Badges <http://specification.openbadges.org> are converging with other open credential specs using the credentials vocabulary. The draft 1.1 specification has issuers publish badges as linked data Manu pointed out two issues with a pull request to reference the Open Badges context from the redirect service that was suggested for use, w3id.org Pull request: https://github.com/perma-id/w3id.org/pull/70 Open Badges draft 1.1 context: http://specification.openbadges.org/1.1/context.json The Badge Alliance needs to move forward with publishing a context file soon so we can release products that use linked data and can make new features available to badge issuers and consumers. There is one particular feature, endorsement, that is in high demand in the community and is waiting on this release. The first issue with this context file that Manu mentioned was the "v1.1" URL. He said the LD community likes to have only major version numbers represented in contexts. New properties may be added, but the community pledges to support existing 1.x properties until a v2 is created, even as specs relying on the context may go through several minor versions. This might be tricky for Open Badges 1.x though, because though the Badge Alliance does intend to use contexts in this way (no breaking changes through the 1.x series), the BA decided to use the context file for an additional feature, one that intentionally would separate minor versions. That is a JSON-schema based validation feature, where a context file corresponds to a specific version and may provide one or more JSON-schema that validate nodes by their class @type. Between 1.1 and 1.2, if new properties are added to the context, they might be added to both 1.1 and 1.2, but if those properties represent a new requirement, it would only be required in the JSON-schemas linked from the 1.2 version. This approach to JSON-LD and JSON-schema is experimental, and it has an unknown level of utility. It may fall by the wayside before the next major version of Open Badges. Nevertheless, using the context to link to validation schema is part of the proposed Open Badges 1.1 specification. Alternatives such as forcing implementers to use an array of multiple contexts (one for v1 and one for the minor version validation schema) suffer from their own downsides, including that there are still minor-version-named context files. The Badge Alliance is open to alternative suggestions for a very short amount of time before the 1.1 spec is frozen. The second issue Manu identified with this pull request is that there is already a https://w3id.org/openbadges/v1 context file which represents one implementation of credentials and is incompatible with all versions of the Open Badges specification. There are production systems relying on this context being discoverable from that w3id.org URL, so a new context representing the Open Badges spec cannot overwrite it. It may be confusing to users who would look at a /v1.1 context and assume it was compatible with a /v1 context when they actually came from different development histories. I'm looking for a solution that will be the best for Open Badges as linked data in the short term (1.x series), as well as the long term, meaning I want to settle on some term IRIs to use for the classes and properties that make up badges that are stable until the point when a proposed Credentials Working Group produces a recommendation. At that point, I would hope to do what I can to push the Open Badges spec to full compatibility with that recommendation. I'm interested in the community's thoughts. Looking forward to a bright future of standardized credentials, *Nate Otto, Developer* concentricsky.com
Received on Tuesday, 24 March 2015 16:57:14 UTC