Re: WHO SVC "Smart Vaccination Certificate" interim guidance

Hi Steve - thanks for sharing.


Transmute and others have done some related work in the CCG prior to the
release of this guidance. We are still parsing through the shared materials
to understand compatibility with VCs, so I can’t answer that question just
yet (looking forward to other responses as well).


We are currently working with Mattr and others on:
https://github.com/w3c-ccg/vaccination-vocab.  The Mattr team can speak
more about any relationship to WHO efforts as they have at least a few
folks participating in that work.


We also put together a related interoperability demo for the DHS SVIP
plug-fest earlier this month including Mattr and Secure Key. The second
video in this post (
https://medium.com/transmute-techtalk/interoperability-is-not-a-choice-387d57c6dc32)
illustrates an example flow of presenting evidence of vaccination in order
to audit a facility. JSON-LD credentials include selective disclosure
capabilities (BBS+) and offline verification (paper.transmute.vc).


Margo
ᐧ

On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 7:05 PM steve capell <steve.capell@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi team
>
>
> https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/documents/interim-guidance-svc_20210319_final.pdf
>
> The interim guidance from the WHO on smart vaccination certificates.
>
>    - The document details the semantic payload (data model and codes) for
>    a certificate - which makes sense.
>    - No mention of W3C Verifiable credentials in there.  looks like more
>    of a traditional PKI chain of trust architecture.
>    - On the other hand the verification protocol description is quite
>    abstracted from specific technologies so it may be possible to implement a
>    VC based solution within a member country and still claim WHO SVC
>    compliance - although I havent worked through all the sequence diagrams /
>    architecture diagrams to confirm whether or not a W3C VC solution could be
>    "compliant".
>
> Has anyone in this group had any involvement in this and does anyone have
> a more informed opinion about whether a W3C VC based solution using a
> JSON-LD version of the semantic payload could be considered compliant with
> the standard?
>
> cheers,
> steve
>
>
> --
> Steve Capell
>
>

-- 

*MARGO JOHNSON*

Head of Product

Preferred pronouns: she, her, hers

LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/margojohnson/>

Medium <https://medium.com/@margo.e.johnson>

www.transmute.industries


<https://www.transmute.industries/>