-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 117
Spec does not contain "name" and "description" terms in the context #1214
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Comments
The issue was discussed in a meeting on 2023-07-26
View the transcript2.4. Spec does not contain "name" and "description" terms in the context (issue vc-data-model#1214)See github issue vc-data-model#1214. Brent Zundel: If I recall correctly, we've had several issues similar to 1214. That makes me think we should have specification text for this. Manu Sporny: After VC 1.0 came out, we couldn't add it in 1.1 as it was technically a breaking change. Ivan Herman: Just to clarify, these are schema.org terms, no change on the vocabulary. |
As discussed on the 16-Aug-23 call, I believe that terms should only be in the context if they're defined in the VC Data Model specification. |
The issue was discussed in a meeting on 2023-08-16
View the transcript2.5. Spec does not contain "name" and "description" terms in the context (issue vc-data-model#1214)See github issue vc-data-model#1214. Manu Sporny: We have talked about using name and description in VCs and put it in the context, this is about adding spec text for those things. Orie Steele: I think the current v2 context plans to use schema.org definitions for these, when you consider entire VC vocabulary, you'd expect to see schema.org term definitions -- theoretically, we could have added name registered claim name from jose registry, there would be contention about which registry defines name -- wanted to surface that thing... I have been doing so many PRs for registered claim names, I expect that particular URL would never be surfaced and name would be protected, name would throw an error eventually, probably more information than people care about, wanted to put it in context. Sebastian Crane: From other spec efforts, although you can't stop people from doing stupid things, if you provide name/description, careful to say that "this shouldn't be used for" and list cases where it would be more useful to extend it rather than dumping human readable information into those fields.
Kristina Yasuda: I'm not sure Orie or Sebastian agreed w/ Manu's suggestion on what to put in the text. Michael Jones: The issue points out name and description are in the context and not in the spec. Manu Sporny: That's what this issue is about, aligning those two things, making sure that we define them in the spec as well.
Kristina Yasuda: again, Manu said one thing... orie mentioned schema.org, do we have agreement on the direction. Orie Steele: I think we have a path forward, we add sections of text to name/description and we make it reflect what's in the context today, would expect text on name/description on schema.org -- we mean same thing as in context today.
|
The issue was discussed in a meeting on 2023-08-16
View the transcript2.5. Spec does not contain "name" and "description" terms in the context (issue vc-data-model#1214)See github issue vc-data-model#1214. Manu Sporny: We have talked about using name and description in VCs and put it in the context, this is about adding spec text for those things. Orie Steele: I think the current v2 context plans to use schema.org definitions for these, when you consider entire VC vocabulary, you'd expect to see schema.org term definitions -- theoretically, we could have added name registered claim name from jose registry, there would be contention about which registry defines name -- wanted to surface that thing... I have been doing so many PRs for registered claim names, I expect that particular URL would never be surfaced and name would be protected, name would throw an error eventually, probably more information than people care about, wanted to put it in context. Sebastian Crane: From other spec efforts, although you can't stop people from doing stupid things, if you provide name/description, careful to say that "this shouldn't be used for" and list cases where it would be more useful to extend it rather than dumping human readable information into those fields.
Kristina Yasuda: I'm not sure Orie or Sebastian agreed w/ Manu's suggestion on what to put in the text. Michael Jones: The issue points out name and description are in the context and not in the spec. Manu Sporny: That's what this issue is about, aligning those two things, making sure that we define them in the spec as well.
Kristina Yasuda: again, Manu said one thing... orie mentioned schema.org, do we have agreement on the direction. Orie Steele: I think we have a path forward, we add sections of text to name/description and we make it reflect what's in the context today, would expect text on name/description on schema.org -- we mean same thing as in context today.
|
PR #1252 has been raised to address this issue. This issue will be closed once that PR is merged. |
PR #1252 has been merged, closing. |
Terms terms
description
andname
are in the context, but are not in the spec itself.Both terms are optional.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: