Re: JFF Plugfest question

Hello all,

We should continue this discussion (either in this thread or at a VC-EDU call) but I want to reiterate that this topic does not affect the requirements for the Plugfest.

Thanks, 

K.

> On May 31, 2022, at 5:31 PM, Nate Otto <nate@ottonomy.net> wrote:
> 
> @Dmitri, thanks for replying with your thoughts.
> 
> > I want to suggest that -- the achievement.id <http://achievement.id/> field is a non-idiomatic way of fulfilling that usecase. achievement.type would make a lot more sense, and would match the usage in the general Verifiable Credentials community.
> 
> I think you haven't quite grasped the use case for "Does the user have credential X?", for example for a credential certifying a user as being qualified to use a specific 3D printer in a specific maker space.
> 
> The scenario here is not "holder, please present any VCs that may be related to 3DPrinterAuthorization from any issuer", it is "holder, can you present that you hold the specific achievement issued by this specific organization that claims you have met the criteria of its specific training program for using this specific 3D printer?". 
> 
> In Open Badges, a particular Defined Achievement has criteria and assessment that are particular to the creator. Other issuers are not permitted to issue valid credentials that are created by a particular achievement creator; this is pretty core to how Open Badges works. If we didn't have this default restriction, Harvard University might define a particular achievement for a Bachelor's Degree in Computer Science, and we wouldn't be able to differentiate between the real deal Harvard degree and impersonations. Open Badges has its mechanisms for doing this based on achievement.id <http://achievement.id/> and achievement.issuer/creator, and the workgroup will need to ensure that verification of this core feature still works efficiently under 3.0. It is use case #1 for Open Badges, so it's critical to deliver.
> 
> Open Badges 3.0 spec introduces a separate set of use cases (not "defined achievement") that correspond to something more akin to what you have paraphrased, "holder, please present any VCs that may be related to 3DPrinterAuthorization from any issuer", under the heading of "skills". That would be to ask for any VC that claims a user holds a particular skill, as recognized by any issuer, you would ask "holder, please present any VCs that claim that you hold skill 'htttps://sharableskills.example.org/skills/3DPrintingAdvanced' <http://sharableskills.example.org/skills/3DPrintingAdvanced'>." I expect the approach for this will depend on the "result.alignment.targetUrl" but am open to suggestions for alternate approaches. It's the critical 2 week period right now to deliver on this use case, so discussion <https://github.com/IMSGlobal/openbadges-specification/issues/339> is very welcome.
> 
> If it's your suggestion that IMS/1EdTech implement a significantly different mechanism in OB 3.0 for serving the most important use case in Open Badges than was used in 2.0, that's something that should be brought to the attention of the chairs of that workgroup immediately so that they can schedule appropriate time to address it before candidate final vote and release.
> 
> Nate