Dave Longley

Closing as stale/potentially addressed as updates have come in with the URL resolution code. If there's still an issue, feel free to re-open.

Thanks @RDProjekt! We need to take a closer look at this when we can, but it does look like we want to pull it in. We do need to get...

I don't think we should be mixing identity claims and authorizations. I think the separation we have now is good and useful, and helps us avoid potentially dangerous (for both...

@burnburn, Another way to put what VC provides is that it provides cryptographic proof of the **authorship** of claims.

The "issuer" property should also be included in the credential examples above, i.e.: ```js // This credential states that Alice knows Bob, and Bob has a public key X {...

@jandrieu, > I don't believe I've seen anything in our draft documents explaining how the recipient/inspector of a claim could verify that the terms of use, such as duration, are...

@RieksJ, Using a relationship named `credentialSubject` makes sense in the data model, particularly if you think of the data as a graph, which is what we're modeling. A credential is...

@RieksJ, > Since JSON-LD does not allow duplicate keys, then what does a credential look like (in JSON-LD) that has claims (or better: JSON-LD graphs) about two different subjects? Instead...

> DID and VC contexts should not require 1.1 since they just define terms and don't bundle other ontologies. The `@protected` feature from 1.1 is a hard requirement. It ensures...

@OR13, As stated in [another thread](https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/753), I'm content with exploring adding `@vocab` to the core context. However, I don't agree that it's a requirement to avoid processing by a consuming...