- From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2023 23:37:48 +0200
- To: W3C Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <979464FE-9E0A-4E53-9421-AA30BBF87EC3@bblfish.net>
Hi, I have been starting to look in detail at the VC Data Model for the purpose of developing a logic of access control (using the newly released IETF “Signing HTTP Messages” RFC [1] ). I was developing Access Control use cases for Verifiable Credentials here https://github.com/co-operating-systems/PhD/blob/main/UseCases/VerifiableCredentials.md which forced me to look carefully at the Data Model. So I too to translating the JsonLD to the more explicit N3 format - as it helps see what claims are being made. Now Diagram 6 on the VC Model 1.1 looks good, and fits nicely into the recent work on RDF surfaces. But I have not been able to map the example JSON-LD Credentials to the right types of surfaces. So perhaps there are some things to be fixed in the JSON-LD context? I wrote up an issue explaining that in detail here https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/1248 At today's conf call I heard talk of VC 2.0. How far off is that? I can’t tell if this is an easy fix or something for VC2.0. Henry Story [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2023JulSep/0124.html [2] https://w3c-cg.github.io/rdfsurfaces/ Currently there are two surfaces: positive and negative, but we clearly need a “neutral” surface for statements where we don’t yet want to claim truth or falsity.
Received on Tuesday, 22 August 2023 21:37:59 UTC