Re: Portability Requirement

I am not sure what to say.  I heard a strong requirement from the group on
the call today that this be included.  As far as I know, all this means is
that credentials (aka claims) need to have a well defined data format that
is transportable.  The repository for a claim could be a folder fill of
.json files on a disk, right?  Or some fancy service provider.  The claims
and their integrity are not dependent upon the repository.

On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On 15 March 2016 at 18:19, Shane McCarron <shane@halindrome.com> wrote:
>
>> As per my action item today, I have included a requirement and scenarios
>> about portability of claims.  This has been checked in and pushed to [1].
>> Please take a look and let me know if it captures what we discussed!
>>
>
> -1
>
> When portability first came up I pushed back on a 'slippery slope' basis.
> It's gone from MAY to SHOULD to MUST.
>
> The web is fundamentally based on cool URIs not changing.  Every time this
> portability items shows up it becomes an over emphasized point that tends
> to torpedo a project.
>
> It's not clear here whether this means using the typical quad nature of
> HTTP URIs, or creating some new URI scheme.  If the latter, we shouldnt be
> creating new URIs schemes, we should be using the web.  That's what linked
> data is all about.
>
>
>>
>> [1] http://w3c.github.io/webpayments-ig/VCTF/use-cases/
>>
>> P.S.  I also changed "curator" to "repository" as per the poll we took.
>> Since this is in an external file, your browser may cache the content.  If
>> you see dfn link errors, that's what it means.
>>
>> --
>> -Shane
>>
>
>


-- 
-Shane