[PROPOSAL] New specification document title: W3C Consensus-based Data Model Specification for Verifiable Credentials

[mwherman2000]

The current title

Verifiable Credentials Data Model 1.0

does not, in the mind of a new reader, accurately describe the nature of the W3C version 1.0 data model specification for VCs.

A more accurate, trustworthy, easily discernable title is:

W3C Consensus-based Data Model Specification for Verifiable Credentials

The former takes on the air of being a Standards document - but the current version 1 document does not reach that bar. The version 1 document lacks cohesiveness and connectedness - which makes it unattractive and unacceptable as a "standards" document.

[mwherman2000]

Quoting...

What makes a standard ‘world class’?
It is not easy to say exactly what makes one standard better than another, but the following points are probably the most important:

• A world class standard should have well-defined objectives that respond to real needs in a timely manner.
• Its technical content should be complete and accurate.
• It should be easy to understand (or as easy as the subject matter allows!) and easy to implement.
• Its requirements should be expressed clearly and unambiguously.
• It should be validated.
• It should be well-maintained.

Reference: https://www.etsi.org/images/files/Brochures/AGuideToWritingWorldClassStandards.pdf

[TallTed]

@mwherman2000 -- I edited your comment to show that you quoted all the bullet points, as well as the introductory lines. I'm struggling to see how this quote is relevant to your suggestion to retitle the document.

That suggestion itself is mystifying me.

I might agree that the title might be better understood with a little word-shuffling (leading to "Data Model Specification for Verifiable Credentials 1.0"), but you're also inserting elements ("W3C Consensus-based") which are unnecessary, redundant within themselves, and seem intended to somehow ease the criticisms you level later, but which seem at least equally applicable to the titles of most if not all other W3 TRs -- but you've only chosen to bring them here.

"W3C" is not typically part of the title of W3 Technical Recommendations, just as IETF is typically not part of RFC titles. "Consensus-based" is implicit in a W3 TR, because consensus is and always has been a key part of W3 process.

To my eyes, none of your changes do anything to change how "accurate, trustworthy, [or] easily discernable" the title is or isn't. Further, few if any would expect a title to communicate all of what is contained in a document -- else the document would be a good deal shorter!

So... What is really motivating this, two years after the VC Data Model TR was published?

[mwherman2000]

What is really motivating this, two years after the VC Data Model TR was published?

For me, this question (and the two year timing) is actually irrelevant. It may be relevant to others but not me. The quality of the document (polish) IMO doesn't reflect 2 years worth of community effort. The document, in its current state, regardless how old it is or how much effort has gone into it, in its entirety, doesn't hang together very well as a cohesive, well-connected document.

@msporny has acknowledged the document's issues relative JSON and JSON-LD.

The document doesn't have a cohesive position on what it means not have a credentialSubject id element, when a VC has a credentialSubject id element, is it simple another claim along side all of the other claims in the credentialSubject, what distinguishes the credentialSubject id claim as special claim with special semantics? etc.

I believe these are fundamentally important issues with the words in the spec itself.

[TallTed]

[@mwherman2000] The document doesn't have a cohesive position on what it means not have a credentialSubject id element, when a VC has a credentialSubject id element, is it simple another claim along side all of the other claims in the credentialSubject, what distinguishes the credentialSubject id claim as special claim with special semantics? etc.

I cannot make these words make sense. Punctuation is missing (or perhaps there's extra?); words are missing (or perhaps there are extra?); some words are misspelled for their use/placement; etc. There are other challenges with understanding this and other undiagrammable "sentences" from you, here and elsewhere. Perhaps you could review and edit?

[mwherman2000]

@TallTed See #480 (comment)

[TallTed]

[@mwherman2000] @TallTed See #480 (comment)

Comments like this are making it increasingly difficult for me to believe that you are acting in good faith when raising and commenting on issues here and elsewhere.

[iherman]

The issue was discussed in a meeting on 2021-08-25

• no resolutions were taken

View the transcript

5.1. [PROPOSAL] New specification document title: W3C Consensus-based Data Model Specification for Verifiable Credentials (issue vc-data-model#791)

See github issue #791.

Brent Zundel: this is not a 1.1 or 1.2 issue, we should defer to v2.0

Manu Sporny: no W3C spec is titled consensus based, so it will never be accepted

Brent Zundel: Yeah, since the W3C process is consensus-based, this addition to the title would need to be added to all W3C specs
… and we don't have enough folks here to make the decision anyway

Manu Sporny: I'm fine with us re-visiting this on a v2.0 timeframe.

David Chadwick: all standards are consensus based to the best of my knowledge

[brentzundel]

I propose this issue be closed without further action.

[iherman]

The issue was discussed in a meeting on 2022-07-27

• no resolutions were taken

View the transcript

5.2. [PROPOSAL] New specification document title: W3C Consensus-based Data Model Specification for Verifiable Credentials (issue vc-data-model#791)

See github issue vc-data-model#791.

Brent Zundel: This was a proposal that the spec be re-titled "W3C Consensus-based Data Model Specification for Verifiable Credentials" kristina and I think this is highly unlikely.

Manu Sporny: +1 to close :).

Joe Andrieu: +1 to close.

Oliver Terbu: +1 close.

Ted Thibodeau Jr.: +1 to close.

Ivan Herman: +1 close.

Brent Zundel: So we tagged it as pending closed.

Phil Archer: +1.

Tobias Looker: +1 to close.

[brentzundel]

Based on conversation in the meeting, we are closing this issue