clarification of schema property

[David-Chadwick]

---

Preview | Diff

[kdenhartog]

Good catch, this seems like an obvious change that just slipped through and won't cause any sort of breaking change. However, it does appear to be adding a normative statement so I'm going to classify it as a V1.2 change which I think is fine to go through during the maintainence WG.

[David-Chadwick]

There is an issue about whether a holder should insert a schema property into the VP that it issues, because there are going to be multiple flavours of VPs.
Finally, should we add a note to say that the schema is not intended to be constrained to defining only the properties of the credentialSubject (which some people have wrongly thought to be the case, even though I think the current text is clear that it applies to the entire VC)

[msporny]

Fine with the concept, but no need to use normative language.

[iherman]

The issue was discussed in a meeting on 2021-09-15

• no resolutions were taken

View the transcript

3.4. clarification of schema property (pr vc-data-model#816)

See github pull request #816.

Brent Zundel: Next: PR 816

David Chadwick: I raised this because it was on a different list - TallTed asked me to point to it here.
… Some people are creating schemas that cover the credential subject and not the whole credential.
… I thought this could be because the text is not clear.
… First thing I found is that there is no statement that the credentialSchema must be present.
… But that would be a breaking change. So made it a "CAN".
… I think the text is clear that the schema property is for the entire credential.
… But there are now two other issues which I've put there: what about verifiable presentations?
… There could be different flavors of VPs... If the group agrees, we could put schema for VPs.
… The second issue: Should we put a note in, to specifically say that the schema is not intended to apply just to the subject.

Kyle Den Hartog: +1 I'm good with adding those to this PR

Brent Zundel: I am personally fine with those additional pieces of text being added to this PR, just because it is part of the same conversation we've been having.
… I'm not opposed to the addition of normative language if it's needed to address errata.
… I agree with Manu that in this case it would be difficult to say how this would be testable. Making a normative statement may not give us the assurances we are hoping for. And as you said, changing it to a "CAN" is fine.
… So the normative change would be to add a schema property for use in the VP. I think that is arguably errata and could be incorporated in the revisions we make, as long as it goes in this review period.
… Any questions, comments, before moving on to the next PR?

Manu Sporny: o/

[kdenhartog]

I've relabeled this to a V1.1 change pending the update (change "MAY" to "can") in accordance with the discussion we had about this PR on the 9/15 call.

[David-Chadwick]

I hope I have now accepted MAY to can using the web interface

[kdenhartog]

Looks like it didn't go through quite properly when I just reviewed it, but I was able to get it all fixed up easy enough. Looks like everything should be good to go for this PR based on current feedback. Thanks for your addition @David-Chadwick

[kdenhartog]

@msporny since you still have requested changes (I think they've all be addressed here at this point) I'll leave this one to you to merge.

[iherman]

The issue was discussed in a meeting on 2021-09-29

• no resolutions were taken

View the transcript

1.4. clarification of schema property (pr vc-data-model#816)

See github pull request #816.

Wayne Chang: On issue 816, clarification of schema roperty, 3/4 approvals, manu requested changes, but seems like they've been addressed, is that correct?

Manu Sporny: If that was done, we're good to go.
… Yup, that's done, let me just approve, we're good.

Wayne Chang: Ok, squashing and merging.
… do we mean to merge into v1.1?
… Can I change this so it merges to v1.1?

David Chadwick: Yes, please.

Wayne Chang: Seems like they're conflicts, we'll have to fix those.
… Just README and diagrams are conflicting, this is more of a technical git issue, I can help w/ that.
… Any other comments on this PR

[David-Chadwick]

I have updated the README.md file (it appears that I needed to change two occurrences of "1" with "one". I am not sure if a) this is sufficient and b) whether I did it correctly or not. I am not sure what to do next

[kdenhartog]

No worries, I was able to fix it for you easily. This is cause the main branch README.md is slightly different from the V1.1 branch readme, and I haven't got around to merging the changes from V1.1 back into main so that anyone building their feature branch off main won't encounter the same issues.

[kdenhartog]

Multiple positive reviews, all feedback has been addressed, the 14 day merge period has been completed, and there's multiple positive reviews now. Will be updating the labeling so the errata points to the issue rather than the PR as well and then closing the issue.