Re: Question on complex VP

Hi Stefanie,

Depending on the use case and associated risk, you can do include simple cryptographic digests saying ‘the VC I used as input to create mine was legit when I consumed it’. Alternatively, you can look at ACDC<https://wiki.trustoverip.org/display/HOME/ACDC+%28Authentic+Chained+Data+Container%29+Task+Force> which extends your toolbox with things like self-addressing identifiers, verifiable schemas, gradual disclosure, etc.

Best of luck in your exploration,
Kalin

From: Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@gmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, 16 January 2024 at 9:43 AM
To: ステファニー タン（SBIホールディングス） <tstefan@sbigroup.co.jp>
Cc: public-credentials@w3.org <public-credentials@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Question on complex VP
Stephanie, in my understanding, the latest verified credential implies that all the credentials
before were verified, So provided the chain is not broken and comes with a seal of process integrity, the last step
 in the unbroken chain implies all the previous steps were verified
So my effort is in the robust design of process integrity
Let us know if you have the chance to experiment with this

Paola Di Maio, PhD
Process Engineer

On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 9:35 AM ステファニー タン（SBIホールディングス） <tstefan@sbigroup.co.jp<mailto:tstefan@sbigroup.co.jp>> wrote:
Hi, all

This might seem like a silly question, so I hope you would indulge me.

In the context of using VCs in a traceability context (for example, supply chain). As the product moves along the supply chain and verifiable credentials are also issued by each actor (to represent certifications of inspection, etc. and might differ depending on the product), I imagine that the VP at the end would be difficult to verify since the contents become very long and complex to inspect.

In such a case, I am looking for real-life use cases or examples on how this complexity is handled. I assumed that it might be through an interface of some sort…

Any thoughts or comments are very much appreciated. Thank you in advance.

Best,
Stefannie