Re: Chairs' decision on VC-ACDC Proposal

This has been a recurring issue, point of contention and frustration on the calls and I am hoping to bring it to resolution so everyone can be happy and move forward with a clear understanding.

 

I gathered the following from IRC:

[12:00] <selfissued_> Per the Miami resolution, once there's a defined mapping from a format to the VC Data model, it's a VC.

[12:01] <PL-ASU> Kristina: Resolution in Miami said as long as there is a transformation back to a VC it complies with being a verified credential.

 

Would it be agreeable for this working group to say:

“Any external proof format can provide a transformation, uni or bidirectionally. Output from transformations MUST be conformant to this specification [Verifiable Credential Data Model 2.0]. Transformations can be registered with the vc-specs-dir and the outputs from transformations can be registered with the vc-test-suite“.

 

I chose this language with a view to if there is agreement, a pull request to update the vc dm specification, no work item required, all informative.

 

I think documenting this “somewhere“ at least informatively will answer continuing questions about external proofs, how can new (acdc/gordian/anoncreds) proofs be considered compliant with this specification. It removes the burden of every external proof having to be a work item.

 

Kind regards,
Kevin Griffin
Software Developer 
kevin.griffin@gleif.org 
+1 551 223-4337 
GLEIF, 2500 Plaza 5, 25th Floor, Harborside Financial Center, Jersey City, NJ, 07311

GLEIF Americas a NJ Nonprofit Corporation 
2500 Plaza 5, 25th Floor, Harborside Financial Center, Jersey City, NJ, 07311 
Chairman of the Board: Stephan Wolf 
Managing Director: Karla McKenna 
NJ State Registration No.: 0450486330 
LEI: 2549000PPU84GM83MG36 
gleif.org 
 

 

This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient or if you have received this message in error, please 
notify the sender and delete this message. Any unauthorized copying, disclosure or distribution of this message is strictly forbidden. 

 

 

From: Personal Sam Smith <sam@samuelsmith.org>
Date: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 2:51 PM
To: Kristina Yasuda <kristina.yasuda@microsoft.com>
Cc: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, "public-vc-wg@w3.org" <public-vc-wg@w3.org>, Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: Chairs' decision on VC-ACDC Proposal
Resent-From: <public-vc-wg@w3.org>
Resent-Date: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 at 2:51 PM

 

+1 

 

To clarify, what I interpret this to mean is that a work item is not required in order to be a compliant VC external proof format.

 



On Mar 22, 2023, at 12:11, Kristina Yasuda <kristina.yasuda@microsoft.com> wrote:

 

Based on this resolution from a WG meeting  on 2023-02-16 [1]
Resolution #1: The base media type for the VCDM is credential+ld+json. @context is required (MUST) in the base media type; other media types MAY choose to include @context. Serializations in other media types (defined by the VCWG) MUST be able to be transformed into the base media type. Another media type MUST identify if this transformation is one-directional or bi-directional. Bi-directional transformation MUST preserve @context. Transformation rules MUST be defined, but not necessarily by this WG..

And this resolution from a WG meeting  on 2023-03-15 [2]
Resolution #2: VC spec directory will have an entry for documents that define a mapping to VCDM and these documents can be defined outside W3C VCWG..

I think what follows is that "making a mapping (that can be outside VC WG) that produces a VC as defined in VCDM-core means conformance to the VCDM".

During the WG call today, Joe and Manu said:
<JoeAndrieu> making a mapping does not make anything a VC. Conformance to the VCDM defines VCs
<manu> ^^ yes, that.

Yes, a random mapping does not make anything a VC. Bur a mapping that produces a VC as defined in VCDM means conformance to the VCDM.

I don't think it's a different in "interpretation", but a matter of being specific that a mapping has to produce a VC as defined in VCDM 😊

Best,
Kristina (chair hat off)

[1] https://www.w3.org/2017/vc/WG/Meetings/Minutes/2023-02-16-vcwg
[2] https://www.w3.org/2017/vc/WG/Meetings/Minutes/2023-03-15-vcwg

-----Original Message-----
From: Personal Sam Smith <sam@samuelsmith.org> 
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2023 9:48 AM
To: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Cc: public-vc-wg@w3.org; Mike Jones <Michael.Jones@microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: Chairs' decision on VC-ACDC Proposal

Manu,

I agree, that there could be vagueness but the vc-acdc work item proposal repo defines explicitly that mapping and that mapping AFAIK outputs a json-ld document that satisfies the MUSTs and SHOULDs for a compliant VCDM.

So vd-acdc as an external proof format is not speculative at this point.

We could define unit tests that test for such compliance, thereby removing any vagueness.  


So my request for clarification is not because there is any intent to produce garbage and call it a compliant external proof but to have clear guidance and how one might in good faith be able to do so (absent a work item). And if any member of the community can assert that a good faith attempt at following the Miami compromise  is not compliant,  then I want to know on what basis they could make such a claim.

Sam




On Mar 22, 2023, at 10:31, Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com> wrote:

On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 11:15 AM Mike Jones wrote:


The ACDC proponents can still define a mapping per the resolution that makes ACDCs VCs.


"ACDC VCs" is the sort of vagueness that is probably going to get the 
group into trouble. :)

Per the resolution at the Miami F2F, the ACDC proponents can define a 
mapping, through any process that they see fit, and publish it 
anywhere on the Internet,  that converts an ACDC into an 
`application/vc+ld+json` media type serialization that can then only 
be called a "Verifiable Credential" if it conforms to the normative 
rules in the VCDM. The same goes for JWTs, Gordian Enveloped, and Data 
Integrity protected content.

We really need to clarify the above, because if we don't have 
alignment on it, we'll continue to see  "strange PRs" raised in these 
specifications (because we're not all on the same page about the
above) and, even worse, specifications defined outside of the VCWG 
that call themselves "VCs", while not conforming to a variety of 
statements in the VCDM.

-- manu

--
Manu Sporny - 
https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.
linkedin.com%2Fin%2Fmanusporny%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ckristina.yasuda%40mic
rosoft.com%7Cc1478c5df41b4da34d5808db2af54932%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d
7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C638151005230040077%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIj
oiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C
%7C%7C&sdata=SZz7fZhLLMWjc5XbacxzNCiCcQhk%2FQ6NIE8T9vyY94w%3D&reserved
=0
Founder/CEO - Digital Bazaar, Inc.
News: Digital Bazaar Announces New Case Studies (2021)
https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.
digitalbazaar.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7Ckristina.yasuda%40microsoft.com%7C
c1478c5df41b4da34d5808db2af54932%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C
1%7C0%7C638151005230040077%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDA
iLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=
fM8eqVPByS9cg%2BydovLX5XO9Xev7cOp7xO%2BampMPryM%3D&reserved=0