RE: New hosted extension for DIF Identity Hub

I am open to whatever options produce the best, stable, most well-recognized subset of schema objects, so whatever that is will be fine with us. Can you provide examples of sets that are done in this way? Is there a guide somewhere to walk through all the considerations we should take into account?

- Daniel


From: Martynas Jusevičius [mailto:martynas@atomgraph.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 9:37 AM
To: Daniel Buchner <Daniel.Buchner@microsoft.com>
Cc: Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>; public-schemaorg@w3.org
Subject: Re: New hosted extension for DIF Identity Hub

Why can't you invent new properties in your own namespace that extend schema.org<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fschema.org&data=04%7C01%7CDaniel.Buchner%40microsoft.com%7Ce0502bb0a5444d64fda608d57a1af113%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636549178497163147%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwifQ%3D%3D%7C-1&sdata=ebk7WzBAlmpaI%2BaLg2UKTQrL1oKNoSbdvLEcE%2FD496k%3D&reserved=0> properties?

On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 6:33 PM, Daniel Buchner <Daniel.Buchner@microsoft.com<mailto: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<mailto:thadguidry@gmail.com>]
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 9:14 AM
To: Daniel Buchner <Daniel.Buchner@microsoft.com<mailto:Daniel.Buchner@microsoft.com>>
Cc: public-schemaorg@w3.org<mailto: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