-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 19
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
NIST defines data integrity differently #83
Comments
The comment I made on w3c/vc-data-model, issue #1047, apply here as well. |
@OR13, what is the concrete action that you would like to be taken based on this issue? Given that this is about terminology, which is non-normative, I'm going to mark this as "after CR" and will change that if it seems as if a normative change is being requested on the specification. |
More elaboration on why it's a favorable property to protect information instead of data. Perhaps focusing on how order of object members and array items are impacted. This could probably be rolled into the same PR that elaborates on changing data types using context (the array items issue). |
@msporny perhaps this is a good example: w3c/vc-data-model#1149 (comment) Why is it valuable that In this section specifically: |
The VCWG has achieved consensus that perfect terminology alignment with other specifications, if there isn't confusion generated around the term, is a non-goal. On that basis, it has closed the last remaining terminology alignment request in the VCDM. Additionally, the assertion in the original issue is not correct, namely:
No, the "Data Integrity" specification defines it as "data", which aligns with NIST's definition. We have Data Integrity suites that secure the data based on non-RDF data structures, such as JSON. Based on both of these points, I'm marking this PR as pending close. It will be closed in 7 days unless there are objections. |
We define data integrity in the context of RDF information, not "bytes/ data".
https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.800-63-4.ipd.pdf
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: