- From: Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@atomgraph.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 18:37:25 +0100
- To: Daniel Buchner <Daniel.Buchner@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>, "public-schemaorg@w3.org" <public-schemaorg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAE35Vmx3gAJ0UO=e7dR6DHiv_tN8TVAJz6M1m=QVKuVHOJ+EGw@mail.gmail.com>
Why can't you invent new properties in your own namespace that extend schema.org properties? On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 6:33 PM, Daniel Buchner < Daniel.Buchner@microsoft.com> wrote: > Not sure what you mean by Closed Data. The Hubs are only ‘close data’ in > the sense that the user controls what is exposed and can encrypt some of > their semantic data objects/messages so that only they and those they allow > can decrypt it. > > > > I am very familiar with Actions (and the sub classes), and we have been > planning to use them as the model for the Messages endpoint/mechanism of > the datastore. The issue we face is that we are running into a need for an > extended set of Action sub classes that have more specific properties that > are attuned for the various identity interactions. For example: > > > > We currently tried to specify a message that asks for the user to provide > an attestation proving something via the CheckAction, but we’d really like > some further properties that provide more specifics and expressiveness > about the actual action intent, which is more like a > ProvideAttestationAction. Such an action would include a claims field, > Decentralized Identifier references, and other DID/attestation specific > metadata. We already have a few related to attestations that are causing us > to really bend the intent of the existing Action subclasses, and I don’t > want to misuse them. > > > > Does this make sense? > > > > - Daniel > > > > *From:* Thad Guidry [mailto:thadguidry@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Thursday, February 22, 2018 9:14 AM > *To:* Daniel Buchner <Daniel.Buchner@microsoft.com> > *Cc:* public-schemaorg@w3.org > *Subject:* Re: New hosted extension for DIF Identity Hub > > > > So in essence, your looking for more ways to describe Closed Data and > Actions around Closed Data...versus Open Data (historically where > Schema.org has played a role). > > > > Daniel, Have you read through our Actions document yet ? > http://schema.org/docs/actions.html > <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fschema.org%2Fdocs%2Factions.html&data=04%7C01%7CDaniel.Buchner%40microsoft.com%7C74fe953ab6c14479154708d57a17b3d8%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636549164577687489%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwifQ%3D%3D%7C-1&sdata=6xCRJniFdLSIjN79Mq3a38OSU9iChe40oJrKwY%2F0at8%3D&reserved=0> > > > > -Thad >
Received on Thursday, 22 February 2018 17:37:49 UTC