- From: Adrian Gropper <agropper@healthurl.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2021 10:24:04 -0400
- To: "Phillip D. Long" <phil@rhzconsulting.com>
- Cc: Henry Story <henry.story@gmail.com>, "Michael Herman (Trusted Digital Web)" <mwherman@parallelspace.net>, Steve Capell <steve.capell@gmail.com>, "public-credentials (public-credentials@w3.org)" <public-credentials@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CANYRo8iztTAxbB=jgnX1_AfYhauEujG8u3_iBQAqFW81V+h7hg@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Phil, VCs are a standard data model under control of W3C. Have you considered that the external (across a trust boundary) protocols associated with VCs (and DIDs) should be standardized independently of W3C, ideally in IETF? - Adrian On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 10:11 AM Phillip D. Long <phil@rhzconsulting.com> wrote: > Steve et. al. - You’re right that the non-techie audience, who are savvy > about many things, just not the tech space, do have trouble seeing the > value proposition afforded by VCs. In part that’s because it has never been > possible before to have a trustable assertion without doing the background > checking. Hence, the costs associated with that process are largely built > into existing business models. Change business practices is itself costly, > even if it delivers savings after implementation is achieved. And it opens > up other possibilities for rethinking the verification process for other > practices which will be ’new’ to most. > > A team lead by the Learning Economy Foundation, of which I’m a part, has > some funding to look at the protocol and standards landscape of the VC > ecosystem specifically with the intention of building a visual of the > landscape and then a layman’s guide to the status of the relevant protocols > with, hopefully, some recommendations for the place to start with VCs for > basic use cases such as issuing a certificate for completion of a > credential (education/training). Or, to create self-asserted skills that > can be endorsed through the VC native Open Badge VC that this group heard > Kerri Lemoie present a month or so ago. > > We could use any advice, suggestions and feedback on the emerging protocol > landscape for issuing and presenting VCs. We’d be happy to share what we > gather for feedback and suggestions after our first phase of data > collection (a limited survey) is reviewed and summarized. > > I like the passport chip analogy, as well! > > Cheers, > Phil > > *Phillip Long, Ph.D*., > T3 Innovation Network, LER Pilot Projects Community Manager > e: <phil@rhzconsulting.com>phil@rhzconsulting.com, > SNS: Twitter/Telegram @RadHertz > LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/longpd > — > *Senior Scholar, Georgetown University* > Center for New Designs in Learning & Scholarship (CNDLS) > e: pl673@georgetown.edu > — > *Open Software Fellow* > Concentric Sky > e: plong@concentricsky.com > https://concentricsky.com/ <https://www.concentricsky.com/> > — > > *RHz Consulting, LLC.*Inquire-Listen-Design-Prototype-Analyze-Repeat > e:phil@rhzconsulting.com > LinkedIn:http://www.linkedin.com/in/longpd/ > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/longpd/> > > > > > > > > On Aug 23, 2021, at 7:10 AM, Steve Capell <steve.capell@gmail.com> wrote: > > Also a good analogy. Probably depends on your intended audience > > - a tech audience will most likely understand and appreciate the x.509 > analogy > - but a business / policy audience will give you a blank stare if you say > “it’s just like x.509”. I think the passport chip is a better story for > the non tech audience > > I may venture to suggest that the biggest problem I’ve faced (and probably > this group faces) is not convincing tech savvy people - but rather getting > business / policy people to understand the benefits to the extent that they > will allocate budget to projects so they can realise that benefit > > I still struggle with this - almost every day > > Steven Capell > Mob: 0410 437854 > > On 23 Aug 2021, at 9:03 pm, Henry Story <henry.story@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 23. Aug 2021, at 11:49, Michael Herman (Trusted Digital Web) < > mwherman@parallelspace.net> wrote: > > If you assume a simple definition of a Verifiable Credentials platform as > a set of data models and protocols for creating and verifying verifiable > data packets and their exchange between 2 or more software agents (don't > get hung up on the specific wording), what existing protocols/platform > standards, in your mind, are the most similar to VCs (at a top-level)? > - DNS? > - TCP packets? > - SOAP messages? > - something else? > > > X509 Certificates (with 40 years of tech improvements added to them). > > A Verifiable Claim is just a signed content, and the big leap of VC stack > is that > it is built on well defined, open, extensible logics. > > Henry > > > Michael Herman > > Get Outlook for Android > > > > > >
Received on Monday, 23 August 2021 14:24:29 UTC