W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > November 2022

Re: Publication of VC API as VCWG Draft Note

From: Adrian Gropper <agropper@healthurl.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2022 11:29:57 -0500
Message-ID: <CANYRo8ikEEJiR62QMpJiRxp7Js=W7HTpfq8FeuCkoNtF2do78g@mail.gmail.com>
To: W3C Credentials CG <public-credentials@w3.org>, Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>
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?


On Sun, Nov 20, 2022 at 11:08 AM Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>

> 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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Sunday, 20 November 2022 16:30:23 UTC