Re: VC Specifications Directory goes live

Joe raised: https://github.com/w3c/vc-specs-dir/issues/3

I attempted to resolve it with: https://github.com/w3c/vc-specs-dir/pull/10

I am in favor of the current registration requirements.

Happy to make additional changes in the PR above if folks have suggestions.

OS

On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 8:45 AM Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 9:17 AM David Chadwick
> <d.w.chadwick@truetrust.co.uk> wrote:
> > I have just encountered another issue with the directory entry. What is
> the semantic of "maintainer"? Is this the maintainer of the directory
> entry, or the maintainer of the specification that is pointed to by the
> directory entry? These could be different people as they are clearly
> different roles. Currently I have assumed it is the maintainer(s) of the
> directory entry.
>
> Yes, it's supposed to be the maintainer of both, but as you note,
> that's not always the case.
>
> The question here, again, is one of simplicity and determinism; we
> want a single point of contact.
>
> If a maintainer of a VC specification can't bring themselves to also
> add an entry to the VC Specs Dir, then that is an indicator of a
> future potential problem. To put it another way, we don't want an
> unaffiliated individual adding entries for VC Specifications where
> they do not have the right to speak with authority about the
> specification and its registration.
>
> It's not that we can't complicate the rules of the VC Specs Directory
> to address these cases... it's the cognitive burden we're placing on
> the maintainers of the directory when we make the registration
> criteria require more thought than necessary.
>
> To go at it from yet another direction: "Do we think that requiring VC
> Specification Directory entry authors to also be editors/authors of
> the specification they're adding to be an undue burden?" At present,
> I'm leaning towards: "No, it's not an undue burden... we want someone
> that can speak with authority about the specification being
> registered."
>
> > But this raises a larger issue. Where are the definitions of the schema
> fields to be found? Perhaps they should be added to the Read.me file?
>
> It's currently documented here (see the description fields):
>
>
> https://github.com/w3c/vc-specs-dir/blob/main/tooling/specification-entry.yml
>
> That said, people are not going to find it easily there, and the
> descriptions are not great. Please raise an issue to improve upon the
> current state (document these fields in the README.md, the pull
> request template, and improve the descriptions in the
> specification-entry.yml file.
>
> -- 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/
>
>

-- 
*ORIE STEELE*
Chief Technical Officer
www.transmute.industries

<https://www.transmute.industries>