vc-data-model
vc-data-model copied to clipboard
w3c
Vocabulary definition changes
I don't think this change is normative, but I wonder if it is substantive. Would merging this PR cause implementations to break?
@dlongley or @msporny do you know the answer here: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/771#issuecomment-892738769 ?
The issue was discussed in a meeting on 2021-08-25
- no resolutions were taken
View the transcript
4.5. Vocabulary definition changes (pr vc-data-model#771)
See github pull request #771.
Brent Zundel: is this a breaking change or not? Should it be 1.1 or 1.2
Manu Sporny: non of the files that are touched are normative. Its only descriptive text. But if anyone was doing advanced graph processing then everything would break
… whilst it is safe to make the change now I would prefer to wait for 2.0 just in case someone is doing this advanced RDF processing
… this change does not affect implementors using JSON or JSON-LD processing, but only those doing graph processing
This PR needs to be rebased before we merge it. I believe the same problem might apply to the proof property, but I haven't had the time to check to see if that's true yet.
This PR should not be merged in its current state; it should be re-engineered using the documentation generation tools and the respec must be refreshed, too.
I will therefore close this PR without merge, and will work on a new PR to handle the issue. This will also take care of the rebase mentioned in https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/771#issuecomment-1217924660.
Before closing, though... @msporny the proof property has definitely the same issue, but that is not a property defined in this vocabulary; it is defined in https://w3c-ccg.github.io/security-vocab/#proof. Yes, that one must be updated as well; is it a vocabulary that ought to be taken over by the WG?
@iherman wrote:
is it a vocabulary that ought to be taken over by the WG?
Yes, it should be taken over by the WG.