Summary of the votes during the last special topic call

Hi,

A kind reminder that we have a special topic call at 8AM PST on the relationship of JSON-LD and VCDM (including the usage of @context and @vocab).

As was requested, below is the summary of the votes for each of the poll run during the last week's special topic call:

Poll: Representations of the VC 2.0 data model must be restricted to only JSON-LD.
Outcome: No agreement (more -1s) with four +1, One 0, five -1s.

Poll: It must be possible to have credentials that do not require @context processing.
Outcome: Agreement with fourteen +1s, zero 0, zero -1. (out of which at least two +1s were to some definition of @context processing)

Poll: It should be possible to syntactically determine when JSON-LD processing is required and when it must not be performed.
Outcome: No agreement (more +1s) with five +1s, zero 0, four -1s. (out of which, two votes to clarify JSON-LD processing)

Poll: Interoperability can be achieved without a graph-based data model.
Outcome: No agreement (more +1s) with seven -1s, one 0, five -1s.

Poll: JSON-LD algorithmic processing of @context is not required, but must not be broken for JSON-LD processors, either. So, you don't have to process it, but you can't include a value that blows up JSON-LD processors either.
Outcome: No agreement (more -1s) with eleven +1s, one 0, three -1s. (out of which at least two votes asking for alternative phrasing)

Poll: If a processor chooses to process @context, it may do that via simple string equality comparison that compares, at most, 1-2 URLs (to keep things simple).
Outcome: No agreement (more +1s) with nine +1s, three 0s, three -1s

Poll: JSON-LD is not mandatory to create or process a VC
Outcome: No agreement, close to rough consensus with eleven +1s, zero 0s, two -1s (there was some confusion around what to vote on)
Poll: One does not have to know about JSON-LD to use VCs.
Outcome: No agreement, close to rough consensus with five +1s, zero 0, one -1.

Poll: A compliant VC must not break a JSON-LD Processor.
Outcome: No agreement (more +1s) with ten +1s, two 0s, three -1s.

Poll: It will be illegal to fetch certain remote contexts from the Web (as outlined above). This will enable a usage of VCs that require no remote context downloading, reading, or processing (simple URL string comparisons can be used instead).
Outcome: No agreement (more +1s) with five +1s (roughly), three 0s, four -1s.

Poll: It will be legal to use @vocab as either a) specified in the first context, b) specified in the second context, or c) specified inline via @vocab in the second context position, or d) any variation of the previous options.
Outcome: Agreement with fourteen +1s, three 0s, zero -1s.

Best,
Brent and Kristina