Re: Portability Requirement

On 15 March 2016 at 18:19, Shane McCarron <shane@halindrome.com <mailto: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/ <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