RESOLUTION: The W3C Credentials CG supports the rechartering of a Verifiable Credentials Maintenance Working Group.
Topic: Credential Schema Specification
Is there accompanied any video to this presentation? Which I dont see now ✪
Gabec coworker: nobody in our group had any familiarity with JSON-LD. We had familiarity and tooling support for JSON, so we leaned toward JSON-schema as a mechanism to define shape. As you use the same "shape" over time, you naturally get to a consistent vocabulary ✪
Gabec coworker: we wanted to have immutability of schemas. There's nothing that prohibits us from using LD in the future or providing a secondary layer of semantic meaning on top of schemas; it could be argued that consistent use of attribute keys in a schema can substitute and can build semantic consistency. ✪
Stuff to talk about here; community has some good answers about how to generate interoperability over time. +1 from me. ✪
Gabec coworkers: one question, I did see in VCDM spec it points to another vocabulary for linked data signatures. Not sure on status of proposal or document. Says clearly that the type of signature suite should be defined in that other document. You said we were free to develop our own signature suite. Certainly we can fit it in the data model, do we need to have a proposal for disambiguating. If we're not using linkeddata it seems inappropriate to submit ✪