Skip to content
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

Discussion of LinkedClaims RFC - please comment! #3

Open
gvelez17 opened this issue Dec 6, 2024 · 4 comments
Open

Discussion of LinkedClaims RFC - please comment! #3

gvelez17 opened this issue Dec 6, 2024 · 4 comments

Comments

@gvelez17
Copy link
Contributor

gvelez17 commented Dec 6, 2024

This issue is for collecting discussion of the LinkedClaims proposal in the DIF Labs working group

Please refer to

https://github.com/Cooperation-org/LinkedClaims/blob/main/LinkedClaimsRFC.md

and

https://github.com/decentralized-identity/labs/blob/main/proposals/linked_claims/001_proposal.md

In particular the unresolved questions

  • Is there a need for a specific "glue" vocabulary such as http://cooperation.org/credentials/v1/

  • How to resolve the tension between using a human-viewable subject URI versus a hashable signed credential as the subject of a claim? Could there be a content type or query parameter that switches, but in this case how to ensure the two are aligned?

  • Should the canonical identifier of a claim be included in the claim itself?

  • Review each of the MUST, SHOULD and MAY in the RFC for usefulness and testability

  • Can we write tests for being a LinkedClaim without a single canonical vocabulary?
    and the largest question

  • What would motivate stakeholders to publish LinkedClaims and expose their claims to external validation? Do non-protocol entities see a use for this?

@gvelez17
Copy link
Contributor Author

gvelez17 commented Dec 6, 2024

do we need an 'updates_at' field to something like ceramic or aries that is revocable?

@dmitrizagidulin suggested this be an 'inbox' with the interface as defined by ActivityPub

@gvelez17
Copy link
Contributor Author

gvelez17 commented Dec 6, 2024

can we connect this to attest.sh - yes https://docs.attest.org/docs/tutorials/ceramic-storage

@gvelez17
Copy link
Contributor Author

gvelez17 commented Jan 2, 2025

Examples for paper:

OFP - granular validation of carbon credits on open forest protocol

https://atlas.openforestprotocol.org/1700544986382

UI demonstrates the validation, the data is also on chain and should be addressable

curious how the decision was made to deny for example - https://atlas.openforestprotocol.org/1711356576770

image

@gvelez17
Copy link
Contributor Author

gvelez17 commented Jan 2, 2025

UNTP Traceability events - these are verifiable credentials, the only question is are they themselves addressable

see https://uncefact.github.io/spec-untp/docs/specification/DigitalIdentityAnchor and https://uncefact.github.io/spec-untp/docs/specification/IdentityResolver for specs and examples

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant