Re: Preparing for a vc-data-model v2.0 FPWD

Manu,

TL;DR I will have to contact Philippe for some of these questions because I am unsure myself (mainly when it comes to legal/IPR issues). Luckily I have a 1-1 meeting scheduled with him next week Tuesday. To speed things up, I cc him on this mail.

However… I am not sure I like the way the resolution of the call is interpreted. The approach you propose seems to continue with the same short name as for 1.1 (ie, https://www.w3.org/TR/vc-data-model/ <https://www.w3.org/TR/vc-data-model/>) all along the development of v2. That may have adverse effects. Indeed, once we begin to publish drafts, that URL will point at a Working Draft; this also means that there won't be a stable version of the model to refer for the years to come. Remember that at some point we will have echidna switched on, this will mean that the document may change several times a day! Are we sure that the community out there will understand the subtleties of the W3C process? Wouldn't that adversely affect the user/developer community who may look for stability?

Remember we had a similar issue with the evolution of JSON-LD 1.1 back in the days. We decided to work on the spec via a new short name for the 1.1 specification, i.e.,

https://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld11/ <https://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld11/>

That meant that while the WG was active on 1.1, the pointer to the 1.0 version, ie,

http://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld/ <http://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld/>

pointed at

https://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-json-ld-20140116/ <https://www.w3.org/TR/2014/REC-json-ld-20140116/>

ie, the community had a stable version to rely on (ie, 1.0). Once the 1.1 work concluded that pointer was redirected to the 1.1 version. In other words,  http://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld/ <http://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld/> was always the pointer to the stable version of the spec as far as the community was concerned.

For VC, my personal preference would be to use

https://www.w3.org/TR/vc-data-model-2.0/ <https://www.w3.org/TR/vc-data-model-2.0/>

(or somethings similar) during the development phase of v2.0. This leaves a stable reference to the 1.1 version of the spec for those out there who are seeking stability.

See also, b.t.w., https://www.w3.org/2005/05/tr-versions <https://www.w3.org/2005/05/tr-versions> with some more info, and we will have to talk to the Webmaster as for the details on how we would want to use the various aliases for '…/latest', '…/upcoming', etc.

WDYT?

Ivan


> On 21 Jul 2022, at 23:59, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi all (Ivan, Chairs, questions for you below),
> 
> Based on one of the resolutions on the call this past Wednesday:
> 
> Resolution #3: We will publish Verifiable Credentials Data Model v1.1 as the
> FPWD for Verifiable Credentials Data Model v2.0.[1]
> 
> The following updates have been made to the vc-data-model repository:
> 
> * The v2.0 branch has been rebased on top of the v1.1
>  branch.
> * The default branch has been set to v2.0
> * The ReSpec configuration has been updated to reflect
>  a v2.0 FPWD publication.
> * The statements in the Status of the Document section and
>  the changelog have been updated to note that this is a
>  FPWD.
> * The new Editors have been added to the spec.
> * A FPWD target publication date of 2022-08-04 is
>  proposed.
> 
> A PR has been raised such that all of these changes can be reviewed before the
> static FPWD copy is created:
> 
> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/894
> 
> Ivan and the Chairs, two W3C Process questions for you:
> 
> 1. Is a target publication date of 2022-08-04 ok? If so,
>   I'll generate a static copy.
> 
> 2. We are, in fact, doing an FPWD, right?
> 
> The publication of a FPWD triggers the IP Exclusion clock:
> 
> https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20200915/#sec-join
> 
> However, the "History" link in the spec makes it seem like you can only have
> one FPWD:
> 
> https://www.w3.org/standards/history/vc-data-model
> 
> Is that going to cause a problem, or do we have control over what the history
> entry states? I'll also note that the "2021-11-09 Proposed Corrections REC"
> and the actual 2022-03-03 REC don't differentiate themselves from one another.
> We should fix that if we can?
> 
> Ideally, history would say something to the effect of "FPWD of v1.0", and
> "FPWD of v2.0".
> 
> In other words, my understanding is that we are doing an "FPWD of the v2.0
> version of the spec", and that is 1) necessary, and 2) isn't going to cause
> any weird issues with the auto-publication/history tooling, correct?
> 
> I paused for a second because W3C Process has changed and it might be that IPR
> Commitments now happen automatically when you join a "v2.0" WG because there
> is a v1.0 REC that's already published? In other words, I'm questioning
> whether or not we have to do a v2.0 FPWD, or if the IPR commitments are just
> automatic after 90 days in the WG? If the question doesn't make sense, perhaps
> this link might help:
> 
> https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20200915/#sec-join
> 
> -- manu
> 
> [1]https://www.w3.org/2017/vc/WG/Meetings/Minutes/2022-07-20-vcwg#resolution3
> 
> --
> 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/
> 
> 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +33 6 52 46 00 43