- From: Adrian Gropper <agropper@healthurl.com>
- Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2022 11:29:57 -0500
- To: W3C Credentials CG <public-credentials@w3.org>, Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CANYRo8ikEEJiR62QMpJiRxp7Js=W7HTpfq8FeuCkoNtF2do78g@mail.gmail.com>
The problem with VC-API is about human rights, not process. VCs are just a data model and inherently neutral in the sense that standardizing a global language is neutral. The use of VCs, however, is a human rights disaster in the making. Bar-coding people is repulsive and VC-API will be applied to people. Also, unlike ISO mDL, VCs do not consider biometrics which leads to the alternative of binding a VC to a human through "certified" holders like we put ankle bracelets on people under house arrest. The issuance of a VC to a container (euphemistically named "holder") is what VC-API is about. Mitigations to the human rights issues may be available at the issuance step but I am not aware of any work in W3C to discuss this in the civil society context. Where in W3C can this be considered? Adrian On Sun, Nov 20, 2022 at 11:08 AM Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote: > On Sat, Nov 19, 2022 at 11:36 PM Tobias Looker > <tobias.looker@mattr.global> wrote: > > It would certainly appear that there are different interpretations of > what the charter permits. I don't read it as allowing publishing of the > entire VC API definition and protocol as a note. > > Seems that the W3C VCWG Staff Contact's read on the current charter is > different than yours; it seems that we're fine to publish as a Draft > Note (or perhaps just an Editor's Draft). Let's see what the W3C > Process team comes back with as a definitive answer. > > > Its not the threat of active mis-representation by VC API proponents > that I see as being the most damaging, it is the passive risk. For example > participants in the wider market that mistakenly view the published note as > an API and protocol definition that has been evolved and blessed by the VC > WG and therefore make a decision to implement on that basis. > > There is a "Status of the Document" section that clearly states that > 1) it is not a W3C Standard, and 2) the specification is highly > experimental and changing rapidly and implementation in > non-experimental systems is discouraged unless individuals are > regularly participating in the weekly meetings. Any publication as a > Draft Note would contain similar language at the top of the document: > > https://w3c-ccg.github.io/vc-api/#sotd > > -- manu > > -- > Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/ > Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. > News: Digital Bazaar Announces New Case Studies (2021) > https://www.digitalbazaar.com/ > >
Received on Sunday, 20 November 2022 16:30:22 UTC