- From: Nik Jenzer <nik@triebwerkstatt.ch>
- Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2026 08:53:53 +0200
- To: "Shigeya Suzuki" <shigeya@wide.ad.jp>, public-vc-wg@w3.org, public-did-wg@w3.org, public-credentials@w3.org
- Cc: ryosuke@jaist.ac.jp
Dear Shigeya, dear all, > Ryosuke and I have posted a preprint that may be of interest to some of > the discussions running across CCG, VCWG, and DIDWG: > > A Verifier-Centric Conceptual Model for Digital Credential Ecosystems > Decomposing Verification into Establishment, Acceptance, and > Materials Acquisition > > Shigeya Suzuki and Ryosuke Abe > https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.10747 Thank you for sharing this — it is directly relevant to work we are doing on RecordWeb, a proposed W3C Community Group draft for an institutional records protocol (composing DID, PROV-O, and VC 2.0 for provable institutional information, e.g. in public administration and archival contexts). > Our position is that interoperability is not format compatibility — it > is the condition that a verifier can obtain the materials it needs and > reach an acceptance decision under stated assumptions. This resonates strongly with a gap we identified in our own specification work. RecordWeb's protocol (RWP) has so far been developed almost entirely from the issuing/producing side — what a system MUST do to create and finalize a provable Record. Your verifier-centric framing, and specifically the Constitution/Logistics distinction, made us realize that we had not adequately specified the corresponding verifier-side requirements: what a third-party verifier must resolve, and what trust assumptions it necessarily relies on, before accepting a RecordWeb Record it did not create. Prompted by your paper, we have opened a set of concrete issues against our two RecordWeb repositories (RWC — concept, RWP — protocol) to work through these questions: https://github.com/recordweb/rwc/issues/1 That tracking issue links five sub-issues covering, among others: adding an explicit verifier perspective to the RWC concept, formalizing trust assumptions (an approach comparable to your Shinken framework), separating Constitution-plane from Logistics-plane concerns in our federation model, and clarifying offline verifiability in the presence of payload deletion. We would very much welcome comments, corrections, or disagreement from you and others on this list — either directly on the linked GitHub issues, or here on-list, whichever is more convenient. Thank you again for making the preprint available. Best regards, Nik Jenzer Federal Chancellery, Swiss Federal Administration TRIEBWERKSTATT RecordWeb — https://recordweb.github.io/rwc/
Received on Friday, 17 July 2026 06:54:05 UTC