Schema cleanup

[nissimsan]

This removes a bunch of schema elements which are not used:

• name
• description
• relatedLinks

[mkhraisha]

To note, name and description will still be valid fields im those credentials as they are part of the verifiable credential spec.

[nissimsan]

Awaiting Mesur to add an approval on this. Then agreement on the call to merge out of band.

[brownoxford]

@rhofvendahl please take point on this research

[rhofvendahl]

@nissimsan There are a number of ag related schemas which include include name, description, and relatedLink as fields, but in most cases only name is used in the example.

@mkhraisha you're saying that it'd be fine to leave these name values in the example even if we remove that yaml field? & this holds true even with additionalProperties set to false?

I'm not sure I understand the pattern we're following if that's the case. Are we only including yaml fields that are both in the spec and in use in examples?

[nissimsan]

@rhofvendahl, that should not be the case. Do you mean issuer's name? That's something else.

If there are indeed a few credential name I've missed, please point me to which ones they are and I'll clean it out. (edit: CI would have missed them too)

[rhofvendahl]

@nissimsan If I'm understanding the intent here it looks as though most ag-related schemas plus a few others have the name & description properties, including:
CTPATCertificate
DeliveryScheduleCredential
DeliveryStatementCredential
FoodDefenseInspectionCredential
FoodGradeInspectionCredential
FSMACreatingCTECredential
FSMAFirstReceiverDataCredential
FSMAGrowingCTECredential
...

(might make more sense to just search for it actually)

For example, here's an excerpt from what I'm seeing for FSMAReceivingCTECredential.yml when I check out this branch:

  id:
    type: string
  name:
    type: string
  description:
    type: string
  issuanceDate:
    type: string
  expirationDate:
    type: string
  issuer:
    $ref: ../common/Organization.yml

Like I said a number of these do have values for name & relatedLink in the example - I'm not sure how to handle that

Please let me know if I'm misunderstanding something!

[nissimsan]

@rhofvendahl, correct.

All the latter ones are because I didn't want to touch the Oil+Gas and Agri schemas. I definitely encourage that you have similar considerations on "your" schemas and purge unused fields.

The CTPAT still has name and descr because it makes business sense for it to include them, providing holders and verifiers a human readable context of the certificate.

[rhofvendahl]

@nissimsan Ah, that makes sense. No objections then.