Refactor examples to use DataIntegrityProof #59
Conversation
index.html
Outdated
| <a>proof type</a> to produce a verifiable digital proof by canonicalizing the | ||
| input data using the JSON Canonicalization Scheme [[RFC8785]] and then | ||
| digitally signing it using an Ed25519 elliptic curve signature. | ||
| The proof example above suggests an exemplary <code>json-signature-2022</code> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| The proof example above suggests an exemplary <code>json-signature-2022</code> | |
| The proof example above suggests an example <code>json-signature-2022</code> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
See https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-integrity/pull/59/files#r986298535 for an alternate suggestion.
index.html
Outdated
| <a>proof type</a> to produce a verifiable digital proof by canonicalizing the | ||
| input data using the JSON Canonicalization Scheme [[RFC8785]] and then | ||
| digitally signing it using an Ed25519 elliptic curve signature. | ||
| The proof example above suggests an exemplary <code>json-signature-2022</code> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| The proof example above suggests an exemplary <code>json-signature-2022</code> | |
| The proof example above suggests a fictitious <code>json-signature-2022</code> |
@TallTed what about "ficticious" instead? It's closer to what I was intending. We're trying to convey that "the thing above doesn't exist, we're only using it as an example that presumptively does X and Y."
On the other hand, I don't really like starting the spec out with a fictitious example.
As a related aside, one of the concepts that's attempting to be conveyed is "You don't have to use Linked Data to use Data Integrity. Data Integrity works for both plain 'ol JSON as well as JSON-LD (or YAML, CBOR, etc. -- but that's a stretch and we might tackle in a few years if DI is successful) ." ... but perhaps we should really spell that out instead of having people trying to read between the lines.
Thoughts?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm OK with fictitious, tho optimally that fiction would carry through all layers, so the fictitious example looks as real as possible, while NOT being real (and having any descriptions that exist for any entities used also indicate that fictitiousness).
This is one of the reasons I fight to use reserved example domain names, phone numbers, etc., wherever they're meant to appear functional for the functionality we need while not carrying through to the physical world.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What if we were to rename json-signature-2022 to example-signature-2022? Would that be better?
index.html
Outdated
| { | ||
| "@context": ["https://w3id.org/security/data-integrity/v1"], | ||
| "type": "DataIntegritySignature", | ||
| "@context": ["https://w3id.org/security/suites/data-integrity/v1"], |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The context URL: https://w3id.org/security/data-integrity/v1 is actually correct (today, anyway).
msporny
force-pushed
the
msporny-cs-add-dip
branch
from
21c29d2
to
b78794d
Compare
msporny
force-pushed
the
msporny-dip-refactor-examples
branch
from
f26d7c1
to
47f25eb
Compare
msporny
force-pushed
the
msporny-dip-refactor-examples
branch
from
47f25eb
to
8b456c4
Compare
|
Editorial, multiple reviews, changes requested and made, no objections, merging. |
This PR updates the examples to align with the new
DataIntegrityProofsection.Preview | Diff