W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > March 2023

Re: [Agenda] W3C CCG 3/7/23 - Lists of Verifiable Issuers and Verifiers

From: Bob Wyman <bob@wyman.us>
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2023 22:50:38 -0400
Message-ID: <CAA1s49Wk-hN-ENP1=HbOrR6NurC_1uO0dFtw5pPazB_VOU0QGA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Harrison <harrison@spokeo.com>
Cc: "W3C Credentials CG (Public List)" <public-credentials@w3.org>
How is a "Lists of Verifiable Issuers and Verifiers" different from any
other kind of list that might be embedded in a VC?

For instance, GPO publishes a JSON list of bills for each of several
Congresses including the list: House Bills for the 118th Congress
<https://www.govinfo.gov/bulkdata/json/BILLS/118/1/hr>. What requirements
would the "List of Verifiable Issuers..." share, or not not share, with an
authoritative list of bills? (Note: I recognize that bill texts are not
themselves either issuers or verifiers, but they are still usefully
represented as list entries.) I'm not sure I see how the "Verified Issuer"
list is different from any other list that might be embedded in a VC. Am I
missing something?

If embedding lists in VCs is something that is to be done, would it make
sense to define a general format for VC's which contain non-trivial lists?
And, if so, should a paging mechanism be defined to ease the handling of
large lists?

If paging is to be supported, would it be reasonable to adopt or use
the ActivityStreams
Collection format <https://www.w3.org/TR/activitystreams-core/#collections>?
Of, would Linked Data Containers <https://www.w3.org/TR/ldp/#ldpc> with Linked
Data Platform Paging <https://www.w3.org/TR/ldp-paging/> or some other
existing spec be preferable? If so, why?

bob wyman
Received on Monday, 13 March 2023 02:51:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 13 March 2023 02:51:07 UTC