Structuring the Security Vocabulary

[mkovatsc]

Looking at https://github.com/w3c/wot-security/blob/master/wot-security-metadata.md, it seems that the terms defined are supposed to be combined freely. Are they? I think this has to big problems:

• It is hard for implementations to actually make sense out of the vocabulary
• It is hard for non-security experts to write sensible security metadata

Hence, I would like the security vocabulary being structured or constrained similar to the data schema vocabulary. That means:

• scheme actually defines the security sub-class, and hence which other field are mandatory and optional in the entry
• We need to define this structure, similar to the rest of the TD terms

[mmccool]

OK, that makes sense. I'm in the middle of reorganizing the content to create an HTML pull request and can do that restructuring. The content of valid entries would not change, I would just restrict what can be used where.

[mmccool]

Did this. Closing issue.