W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > July 2021

Re: Bikeshed: Renaming the VC HTTP API

From: Dave Longley <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2021 14:47:30 -0400
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, W3C Credentials CG <public-credentials@w3.org>
Message-ID: <bb1c28ef-370e-2f3f-e5a8-22ae61b0498b@digitalbazaar.com>
One simple option:

VCHIPS - Verifiable Credential HTTP Interaction Protocols
Pronounced: vee-chips

On 7/17/21 11:45 AM, Manu Sporny wrote:
> Hi all,
> Not many are enthused by the name "VC HTTP API"; it doesn't exactly roll off
> of the tongue. The catch-all term is also confusing debates (again, see the
> most recent perma-thread about the VC HTTP API).
> Some have suggested just calling it the Issuer API, Verifier API, and Holder
> API -- but then the counter-arguments against those are that you need the
> letters "HTTP" in there to not trigger folks that are working on non-HTTP
> APIs, which puts us back at Issuer HTTP API, Verifier HTTP API, and Holder
> HTTP API... and the fundamental issue is that stringing a bunch of consonants
> together ("HTTP") rarely leads to something easy to say in conversation.
> "Holder" is misleading in the same sort of way that "Issuer" and "Verifier" is
> misleading... those are roles, and are not what we're defining. We're defining
> the things that those roles USE. A Holder might use a Credential Repository
> API (CRAPI! <-- please no) or an Encrypted Data Vault API (EDV API) to store
> things. Those seem like more reasonable names... but aren't the names for the
> Issuer/Verifier/Holder/Presentation APIs we're talking about.
> We've been trying to solve the naming issue with the VC HTTP API for as long
> as it's been a thing. This email is just pinging the community to see if they
> have any bright ideas.
> My attempts below:
> VCP - Verifiable Credential Protocols
>       "HTTP protocols for the management of VCs"
>       Use this to define the class of protocols?
> VCIP - Verifiable Credential Issuance Protocol
>        "An HTTP protocol for VC issuance"
> VCVP - Verifiable Credential Verification Protocol
>        "An HTTP protocol for VC verification"
> VCPP - Verifiable Credential Presentation Protocol
>        "An HTTP protocol for VC presentation"
> VCRP - Verifiable Credential Repository Protocol
>        "An HTTP protocol for VC repository management"
> The proposals above start with "Verifiable Credential" and end with "Protocol"
> to "namespace" the sorts of protocols we're talking about; these are
> "Verifiable Credential" protocols.
> We focus on the Issuer/Verifier/Holder role *ACTIONS* rather than the roles
> themselves.
> We can shortcut the longer name in conversation by just referring to it as the
> "Issuance Protocol" or "Verification Protocol".
> We also include "HTTP" in the byline so that there is no confusion as to what
> type of protocols they are.
> What alternatives do folks in the community prefer to VC HTTP API? What's your
> reasoning for liking your term more than VC HTTP API (or those suggested above)?
> -- manu

Dave Longley
Digital Bazaar, Inc.
Received on Saturday, 17 July 2021 18:47:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:25:18 UTC