[EXAMPLE 1] Is Example 1 technically a Linked Data document or just a Simple Document?

[mwherman2000]

In https://w3c-dvcg.github.io/ld-signatures/#ex-1-a-simple-linked-data-document, it states...

EXAMPLE 1: A simple Linked Data document
{
"@context": "https://w3id.org/identity/v1",
"title": "Hello World!"
}

Is this technically a Linked Data compliant document? ...it's impossible to tell from the definition of the linked data document in the Terminology section (see Issue https://github.com/w3c-dvcg/ld-signatures/issues/23)

[msporny]

Example 1 has been updated to remove @context... it now reads "A simple JSON data document":

https://w3c.github.io/vc-data-integrity/#example-a-simple-json-data-document

Closing.

[mwherman2000]

@msporny Are Example 1 (and Example 2) considered to be credentials that are compliant with Verifiable Credential V2 specification?

Reference: https://w3c.github.io/vc-data-integrity/#example-a-simple-json-data-document

[msporny]

@msporny Are Example 1 (and Example 2) considered to be credentials that are compliant with Verifiable Credential V2 specification?

No, and they don't need to be to use the Data Integrity specification.

[mwherman2000]

No, and they don't need to be to use the Data Integrity specification.

Understoood. Just the same, a clarifying comment needs to be added. Especially given the title of your spec is:

Verifiable Credential Data Integrity 1.0
This specification describes mechanisms for ensuring the authenticity and integrity of Verifiable Credentials and similar types of constrained digital documents using cryptography, especially through the use of digital signatures and related mathematical proofs.

[msporny]

and similar types of constrained digital documents

The examples fall under this category ^^^

What sort of clarifying statement would you like to see in the document?

I'm re-opening this issue now, given that you have requested changes.

[mwherman2000]

@msporny When I look at the surrounding text, I feel the explanation would be somewhat convoluted.
Also, Example 1 doesn't contribute very much to the data integrity discussion.

Recommendation: Remove Example 1 and related text ...or... change/fix the title (e.g. Credential Data Integrity spec) and then position Example 1 as a credential with no credential data integrity features/capabilities. "Level zero" support.

Which of the remaining examples are also not VC2 compliant?

[msporny]

PR #105 has been raised to address this issue. This issue will be closed once that PR has been merged.