Re: Wallet segmentation question for our LER Ecosystem SmartReport

"Not all OBv3 are created equal"

Some are implementing key SSI features like DIDs, others are still using
email addresses as identifiers
Some are pushing OBv3 into SSI wallets (not web-based), others are still
hosting them on platforms in the cloud

The 1EdTech OBv3 compliance test is only a partial proxy to determine
whether an OBv3 is a VC.

Given the number of OBv3 certified platforms, I think a "retro" of the OBv3
implementations (in production) would be in place at this point to look
under the hood - and eventually inform the ecosystem map.
Btw, I have suggested this already to the 1EdTech Product Steering
Committee back in November.

We can offer to host a chat next Monday's VC EDU to discuss openly further.

Simone

On Mon, Jan 6, 2025 at 6:22 PM Kerri Lemoie <klemoie@mit.edu> wrote:

> Hi Ian,
>
>
>
> Here’s a couple of ways I can think that OBv2 platforms could also issue
> OBv3:
>
> 1) Add a share to wallet function that would issue/sign an OBv3 to a VC
> wallet
> 2) Provide a way to download a signed OBv3 as a JSON file or a baked image
> (as Credly does).
>
> Both of these options provide the learners with portable credentials they
> can use privately and the possibility of avoiding vendor lock.  These
> options provide a way for OBv2 platforms to transition to OBv3 while
> maintaining their current model.
>
> What you are trying to explain to the ecosystem is challenging. I think
> the key is to consider which platforms offer the issuance of portable,
> verifiable credentials that can exist and be verified outside of the
> platform and those that don’t. That’s really an oversimplification because
> it doesn’t address the nuances of blockchain platforms that use private or
> public ledgers with the vocabularies associated with VCs and OBv3 – but I
> believe that would be a new topic entirely.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> K.
>
>
>
> *From: *Ian Davidson <ian@idatafy.com>
> *Date: *Monday, January 6, 2025 at 11:31 AM
> *To: *Kerri Lemoie <klemoie@mit.edu>
> *Cc: *Rob Coyle <rcoyle@1edtech.org>, Manu Sporny <
> msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, Deb Everhart <deverhart@credentialengine.org>,
> Nate Otto <nate@ottonomy.net>, Phillip D. Long <phil@rhzconsulting.com>,
> Kate Giovacchini <kate.giovacchini@asu.edu>, Taylor Kendal <
> taylor@learningeconomy.io>, chris purifoy <chris@learningeconomy.io>,
> public-vc-edu@w3.org <public-vc-edu@w3.org>
> *Subject: *Re: Wallet segmentation question for our LER Ecosystem
> SmartReport
>
> Happy New Year indeed everyone!
>
>
>
> This ecosystem report defines the ecosystem of LERs as the
> technologies/companies/orgs involved in the issuance, sharing/portability,
> and consumption of OB2 and OB3s, CLR1s and CLR 2s and the LER-RS.  It is
> not the Verifiable Credential ecosystem, though we do go to great
> lengths to explain the overlap between the two and how VCs are involved in
> LERs.  We include that definition of this specific view of this ecosystem
> right at the start of the report.
>
>
> That said, we support the movement toward OB3s and embracing the
> decentralized strengths of VCs.  We include that as a key trend as an
> attempt to signal the importance that LERs continue to evolve in that
> direction.
>
>
>
> I do think the definitions of the "on-platform credential management"
> segment needs some work.  I'm reaching out today and tomorrow to the
> companies shown there to get a better understanding for how their support
> of OB3 will work.  Rob is right that some of these platforms already do
> support OB3 or say they will in 2025. We hope the SmartResume logo will be
> added to that segment in next year's report when we enable the sharing of
> SmartResume's as an LER-RS.  LER.me also anticipates being included in this
> segment as they are building credential management tools into the platform
> and I believe those will focus on OB3s as well.
>
>
>
> Kerri - can you share your current understanding of issuing platforms that
> issue both OB2 and OB3 and how their credential management tools work for
> OB3?  I would think if you're issuing an OB3 then the verification does not
> tie back to your platform - that feels like the key question/concern raised
> here if I'm following things correctly.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 6, 2025 at 9:48 AM Kerri Lemoie <klemoie@mit.edu> wrote:
>
> Hi Rob,
>
>
>
> Interesting. I think the group (and I ) could use some clarification about
> how those platforms are issuing OBv3 and work as Ian describes: “These
> tools are web-based and do not meet the criteria of self-sovereign
> credential wallets. But they do allow credentials to be aggregated and
> moved into directly integrated websites and platforms like LinkedIn or
> Facebook *where the credential may be shared as a link back to the
> issuing platform rather than as a fully portable asset*.”
>
> Could you provide some examples of how platforms are issuing OBv3 that
> don’t work like VCs? I know of some that are issuing both OBv2 and OBv3. If
> any of those platforms are on this mailing list, would love to learn more
> about your implementations.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> K.
>
> P.S. Happy New Year, all! Hit the ground running….
>
>
>
> *From: *Rob Coyle rcoyle@1edtech.org,
> *Date: *Monday, January 6, 2025 at 10:41 AM
> *To: *Kerri Lemoie <klemoie@mit.edu>
> *Cc: *Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, Ian Davidson <
> ian@idatafy.com>, Deb Everhart <deverhart@credentialengine.org>, Nate
> Otto <nate@ottonomy.net>, Phillip D. Long <phil@rhzconsulting.com>, Kate
> Giovacchini <kate.giovacchini@asu.edu>, Taylor Kendal <
> taylor@learningeconomy.io>, chris purifoy <chris@learningeconomy.io>,
> public-vc-edu@w3.org <public-vc-edu@w3.org>
> *Subject: *Re: Wallet segmentation question for our LER Ecosystem
> SmartReport
>
> Several of the “On Platform…” are Open Badges 3.0. Just something to
> consider.
>
>
>
> On Jan 6, 2025, at 10:20 AM, Kerri Lemoie <klemoie@mit.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Manu,
>
>
>
> re: “Wallet may be a tricky/misused term in edu but adding in a new term
> with the risk of legitimizing the principles of VCs, doesn’t seem like a
> great move to me.”
>
> I’ll provide some more context to explain the above: In edu there are web
> apps that are called “wallets” that aren’t VC wallets. It’s been a struggle
> to explain the differences between those centralized apps and VC wallets
> and the differences between hosted and portable digital credentials. This
> has contributed to a learning curve but we’ve started making progress in
> the differentiation especially because Open Badges 3.0 is final and those
> apps are starting to adapt.
>
> My statement above was addressing the term “wallet” that is already
> misunderstood/misused and another term called “On Platform Credential
> Management Tools” adds further complexity because then we have backpacks,
> centralized wallets, decentralized wallets, and then On Platform Credential
> Management Tools too. It adds to the confusion that already exists.
>
> Ian, in discussions you & I have had, you mentioned that some of the
> feedback you’ve received outside of this thread is to not explain the
> difference between Open Badges 2.0 & 3.0 but I don’t see how you can avoid
> that because “On Platform Credential Management Tools” seems to equal Open
> Badges 2.0. So how about just calling them Open Badges 2.0 platforms? It’s
> a little bit of a simplification because some of these platforms are
> starting to offer 3.0 on top of 2.0 but next year, it will look different
> and that could be addressed then.
>
> Manu – I 100% agree with your comments about vendor lock. And also
> concerned about closed ecosystems using SD-JWT VC and claiming to be VCs –
> we have those developing in edu too.
>
> What I’ve noticed in edu is that portability and privacy is challenging
> existing business models (vendor lock)– and totally get that. But from my
> perspective (and the DCC’s), this is the paradigm shift we are working
> towards. It would be better if we can transparently explain the state of
> the ecosystem including the technical ramifications so that we can address
> them versus avoiding them and explore sustainability and profitability.
>
> (Adding vc-edu mailing list back to this thread).
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> K.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
> *Date: *Monday, January 6, 2025 at 9:52 AM
> *To: *Kerri Lemoie <klemoie@mit.edu>
> *Cc: *Ian Davidson <ian@idatafy.com>, Deb Everhart <
> deverhart@credentialengine.org>, Nate Otto <nate@ottonomy.net>, Phillip
> D. Long <phil@rhzconsulting.com>, Kate Giovacchini <
> kate.giovacchini@asu.edu>, Taylor Kendal <taylor@learningeconomy.io>,
> chris purifoy <chris@learningeconomy.io>
> *Subject: *Re: Wallet segmentation question for our LER Ecosystem
> SmartReport
>
> On Mon, Jan 6, 2025 at 9:43 AM Kerri Lemoie <klemoie@mit.edu> wrote:
> > I have critical questions about issuing platforms serving “On Platform
> Credential Management Tools”: What about learner privacy, the concept of
> not phoning home, and access to credentials (portability)? These are the
> foundational principle of W3C Verifiable Credentials and the work of VC-EDU.
>
> Hmm, that's a great point Kerri. I had presumed that the "On Platform
> Credential Management Tools" allowed for full portability and fought
> back against vendor lock. If they don't, that's a critical difference
> to point out. I have seen organizations using VCs and mDL in
> vendor-lock settings and that is harmful to the ecosystem long-term.
> If we end up just creating another vendor-lock ecosystem, we've lost
> one of the biggest benefits of VC's data portability goals.
>
> > Why bother with Open Badges 3.0 if they are going to be stored and
> tracked just like old badges? Are we saying that “On Platform Credential
> Management Tools” are not issuing VCs/Open Badges 3.0? If so, let’s just
> call that out so that the community understands what the differences are in
> functionality and approaches to trustworthiness.
>
> The other concern that is in the back of my mind is the re-purposing
> of the VC branding to promote closed ecosystem solutions. For example,
> SD-JWT VC is definitely NOT a W3C VC, but that community has (somewhat
> successfully) repurposed the brand name to sell closed ecosystem
> solutions.
>
> > Wallet may be a tricky/misused term in edu but adding in a new term with
> the risk of legitimizing the principles of VCs, doesn’t seem like a great
> move to me.
>
> I don't quite understand the comment above. Do you mean that we could
> further confuse things by adding yet another term? Or do you mean that
> we could legitimize vendor-lock and tracking by opening up the
> definition? For example, we allowed fully centralized DID Methods in
> the DID Method registry and (rightly) drew criticism for doing so.
>
> -- manu
>
> --
> Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/
> Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> https://www.digitalbazaar.com/
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Ian Davidson
>
> Chief Growth Officer, iDatafy
>
> 213.359.3109
>
> ian@idatafy.com <dave@idatafy.com>
>
> SmartResume.com
>
>
>
> calendly.com/ian-idatafy
>
>
>
>
>