W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-schemaorg@w3.org > February 2018

Re: New hosted extension for DIF Identity Hub

From: Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@atomgraph.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 18:37:25 +0100
Message-ID: <CAE35Vmx3gAJ0UO=e7dR6DHiv_tN8TVAJz6M1m=QVKuVHOJ+EGw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Daniel Buchner <Daniel.Buchner@microsoft.com>
Cc: Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>, "public-schemaorg@w3.org" <public-schemaorg@w3.org>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 22 February 2018 17:37:49 UTC