As Rieks said, this is foundational to VCs. Verifiable Credentials contain Claims by Issuers about a Subject, with Proofs that the Issuer made the Claims. That's it. There is very intentionally no attempt to verify truth, only which Issuer issued which Claims. It is up to the Verifier to decide which Issuers they trust to issue which Claims.
The key insight that led to VCs was that traditional identity systems fail by implying to relying parties that issuers have some pre-determined status as truth-givers. There are many modern examples of how this trust ends up being violated.
In a VC world, a Verifier may accept VCs from many different Issuers and determine, for themselves and in the moment, which Issuers' statements they trust. VCs mathematically guarantee only that an Issuer ID is the one that generated the Claims about the Subject ID; everything else is properly left in the human domain of policy.
-- dan
________________________________
From: Michael Herman (Trusted Digital Web) <mwherman@parallelspace.net>
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2021 1:01 AM
To: public-credentials (public-credentials@w3.org) <public-credentials@w3.org>
Subject: One subject, 2 VCs, 2 duplicate properties
Context
* Erin is the Subject of 2 Verifiable Credentials: VC1 and VC2
* VC1 has 2 properties: “age” and “hairColor”
* VC2 has the same 2 properties (by name): “age” and “hairColor”
Questions
1. Assuming VC1 and VC2 apply/are valid at the same instant in time, can the value of the “age” property (or the “hairColor” property) be different in V1 compared to V2?
2. What makes sense? …what is realistic? …how should VCs behave in this regard?
I would prefer/like to have each of VC1 and VC2 share the same underlying values for each of these properties.
Best regards,
Michael Herman
Far Left Self-Sovereignist
Self-Sovereign Blockchain Architect
Trusted Digital Web
Hyperonomy Digital Identity Lab
Parallelspace Corporation
[cid:image001.jpg@01D74B70.93FE35D0]
