- From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
- Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2023 09:44:54 -0400
- To: David Chadwick <d.w.chadwick@truetrust.co.uk>
- Cc: W3C Credentials CG <public-credentials@w3.org>
On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 9:17 AM David Chadwick <d.w.chadwick@truetrust.co.uk> wrote: > I have just encountered another issue with the directory entry. What is the semantic of "maintainer"? Is this the maintainer of the directory entry, or the maintainer of the specification that is pointed to by the directory entry? These could be different people as they are clearly different roles. Currently I have assumed it is the maintainer(s) of the directory entry. Yes, it's supposed to be the maintainer of both, but as you note, that's not always the case. The question here, again, is one of simplicity and determinism; we want a single point of contact. If a maintainer of a VC specification can't bring themselves to also add an entry to the VC Specs Dir, then that is an indicator of a future potential problem. To put it another way, we don't want an unaffiliated individual adding entries for VC Specifications where they do not have the right to speak with authority about the specification and its registration. It's not that we can't complicate the rules of the VC Specs Directory to address these cases... it's the cognitive burden we're placing on the maintainers of the directory when we make the registration criteria require more thought than necessary. To go at it from yet another direction: "Do we think that requiring VC Specification Directory entry authors to also be editors/authors of the specification they're adding to be an undue burden?" At present, I'm leaning towards: "No, it's not an undue burden... we want someone that can speak with authority about the specification being registered." > But this raises a larger issue. Where are the definitions of the schema fields to be found? Perhaps they should be added to the Read.me file? It's currently documented here (see the description fields): https://github.com/w3c/vc-specs-dir/blob/main/tooling/specification-entry.yml That said, people are not going to find it easily there, and the descriptions are not great. Please raise an issue to improve upon the current state (document these fields in the README.md, the pull request template, and improve the descriptions in the specification-entry.yml file. -- 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 Wednesday, 22 March 2023 13:45:43 UTC