Add definition of Verifiable Credential Graph and why it exists #1280
Conversation
msporny
requested review from
BigBlueHat,
davidlehn,
dlongley,
pchampin,
iherman,
dmitrizagidulin,
Wind4Greg,
TallTed,
OR13,
brentzundel,
Sakurann and
seabass-labrax
msporny
requested review from
selfissued,
decentralgabe and
awoie
as code owners
index.html
Outdated
| `credentialSubject.id` is the same in both <a>verifiable credentials</a> but | ||
| the object might contain objects of the "Jane Doe" form described in the | ||
| previous paragraph. Care is to be taken to not merge objects that use | ||
| document-relative identifiers, such as blank node identifiers, and only |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is the term 'blank node identifier' used in the specification? This sentence is meant to non JSON-LD users and, for them, this term is meaningless.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This has been fixed in d543779.
index.html
Outdated
| <dfn class="lint-ignore">verifiable credential graph</dfn> is utilized to | ||
| encapsulate the <a>verifiable credential</a>. The value(s) associated with the | ||
| `verifiableCredential` property on a <a>presentation</a> is of type | ||
| <dfn class="lint-ignore">VerifiableCredentialGraph</dfn>. Using this type has a |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This means that the vocabulary will have to change by putting a defined_by link to this term. The comment field in the vocabulary may have to be kept: that is the only place where there is an explicit reference to the RDF Dataset specification, and I believe it must stay there.
The vocabulary definition makes the extra statement whereby a VerifiableCredentialGraph instance must include a single Verifiable Credential, which is the "real" content we are talking about. Shouldn't that be definied here, too?
index.html
Outdated
| object. In other words, prematurely merging data between two | ||
| <a>verifiable credentials</a> can lead to a corrupted data model. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think I know but I do not exactly know what "prematurely merging" and "corrupted data model" supposed to mean. please paraphrase/elaborate.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
|
The issue was discussed in a meeting on 2023-09-14
View the transcript1.10. Add definition of Verifiable Credential Graph and why it exists (pr vc-data-model#1280)See github pull request vc-data-model#1280. Manu Sporny: Giving some background. Orie requested that we document what a VC graph is, and why it's in the spec. This PR does this. The short of it is that when you have a VP, you can include multiple VC within it. Ivan Herman: I made some comments already. Manu Sporny: Agree on doing a parallel PR on the proof graph in the data integrity spec. Agree on making additions to the vocab file. Brent Zundel: Who will raise taht issue in DI? Manu Sporny: I'll do it. Brent Zundel: Down to our last PR, open 13 hours ago. |
Co-authored-by: Dave Longley <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Ted Thibodeau Jr <[email protected]>
msporny
force-pushed
the
msporny-vcg
branch
from
cdcfe94
to
f9e3faf
Compare
Yes, exactly. It's "instantiated" automatically because |
|
Normative, multiple reviews, changes requested and made, no objections, merging. |
|
this PR partially addressed #1263 |
This PR is an attempt to address #1240 by defining the concept of a Verifiable Credential Graph, noting why the concept exists, and how those not doing full JSON-LD processing need to think about the problem space that the Verifiable Credential Graph addresses.
Preview | Diff