Re: VC formats

Good afternoon (in my time zone),

Normally I do not have an active participation in this group, but I had planned to convey and discuss this point with the group coordinators. Some knowledge of the European context is required to understand the document and the proposal correctly (personally, I think it is beneficial for the world of verifiable credentials)

I would suggest holding a meeting with the chairs to give the correct context, and see potential synergies.


Lluis

From: Markus Sabadello <markus@danubetech.com>
Date: Wednesday, 20 March 2024 at 10:20
To: public-credentials@w3.org <public-credentials@w3.org>
Subject: Re: VC formats

I also found this statement about VCDM very strange, which is why I raised an issue about this on this repo a week ago:
https://github.com/danielfett/sd-jwt-vc-dm/issues


I agree with Orie that "Selective disclosure is a property of the securing format, not the data model" and that therefore strictly speaking selective disclosure happens in ecdsa-sd, not in VCDM.

However, the way the slide is presented makes it sound like selective disclosure is somehow not possible with VCDM at all, which is incorrect.
Also see the red X symbol in the above repo's README.

In my opinion, communication by the (SD-)JWT (VC (DM)) community about selective disclosure in VCDM has been misleading / dishonest since the beginning.

The other issue I raised on that repo is about their claim of being compatible with the W3C VCDM v2, which I could not understand based on the examples in that repo.

Markus
On 3/20/24 08:51, Kim Hamilton wrote:
Hi all,
I'm trying to get my head around the variety of VC formats. I ran across this deck and I'm curious why it would say VCDM lacks selective disclosure (included screenshot and deck). It does via signature suites, so in a sense the statement "does not compute".

Eager to learn about the new VC formats, similarities and differences.

Thanks,
Kim
[cid:part1.7cbaOFif.KvmCOm0A@danubetech.com]