Skip to content

Discussion of LinkedClaims RFC - please comment! #3

@gvelez17

Description

@gvelez17

This issue is for collecting discussion of the LinkedClaims proposal in the DIF Labs working group

Please refer to

https://github.com/Cooperation-org/LinkedClaims/blob/main/LinkedClaimsRFC.md

and

https://github.com/decentralized-identity/labs/blob/main/proposals/linked_claims/001_proposal.md

In particular the unresolved questions

  • Is there a need for a specific "glue" vocabulary such as http://cooperation.org/credentials/v1/

  • How to resolve the tension between using a human-viewable subject URI versus a hashable signed credential as the subject of a claim? Could there be a content type or query parameter that switches, but in this case how to ensure the two are aligned?

  • Should the canonical identifier of a claim be included in the claim itself?

  • Review each of the MUST, SHOULD and MAY in the RFC for usefulness and testability

  • Can we write tests for being a LinkedClaim without a single canonical vocabulary?
    and the largest question

  • What would motivate stakeholders to publish LinkedClaims and expose their claims to external validation? Do non-protocol entities see a use for this?

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    No labels
    No labels

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions