- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2022 17:33:23 -0500
- To: W3C VC Working Group <public-vc-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, Dec 6, 2022 at 5:09 PM Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com> wrote: > As extensively discussed in the special topic calls, an "open world model" is not a interoperability requirement and is not a deliverable in our charter. We can (and I believe will) do better than that. The specification has asserted that it supports an "open world model" from v1.0: https://www.w3.org/TR/vc-data-model/#extensibility The VCWG has repeatedly achieved consensus on that during the VC 1.0 work. Here is the decision from April 2019 when what you are stating above was raised (by Microsoft) the first time, discussed by the WG, and a consensus position to support open world was made: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/483#issuecomment-482910429 and the resulting text, that achieved WG consensus: https://www.w3.org/TR/2019/REC-vc-data-model-20191119/#extensibility and then again in the VC 1.1 work: https://www.w3.org/TR/2022/REC-vc-data-model-20220303/#extensibility Asserting the opposite of what the consensus position has been in the group for years doesn't make it true. -- manu -- Manu Sporny - https://www.linkedin.com/in/manusporny/ Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc. News: Digital Bazaar Announces New Case Studies (2021) https://www.digitalbazaar.com/
Received on Tuesday, 6 December 2022 22:34:12 UTC