Markus Sabadello

In general, I like the idea of changing `holder` to be either String or Object, in a similar way as `issuer` can also be String or Object. This seems useful...

Hmm I don't really get it. You say you cannot use a Data Integrity Proof extension because you would have to define a new suite and that this doesn't scale...

As a side note, if you want to express equivalence between `did:example:1` and `did:example:2`, then that could be expressed via DID document properties and metadata, e.g. [alsoKnownAs](https://www.w3.org/TR/did-core/#also-known-as), [equivalentId](https://www.w3.org/TR/did-core/#dfn-equivalentid), [canonicalId](https://www.w3.org/TR/did-core/#dfn-canonicalid). But...

> since you said the VP proof is there for protecting against tampering and verifying the authorship of the VP (not the VC and not the binding between the VC...

> what about this upgrade path: Whatever the decision is, I think the `issuer` in a VC and the `holder` in a VP should have the same rules, e.g. string...

> vp.holder.id equals vc.credentialbSubject.id is just one method out of many. I think @awoie 's explanations here in this thread are really good, so I wouldn't oppose adding some new...

Just a quick note that this issue here could also be relevant to the new RDF Dataset Canonicalization and Hash Working Group: https://www.w3.org/groups/wg/rch @philarcher

Yes there are existing tools and libraries that don't support JSON-LD 1.1, e.g. https://github.com/jsonld-java/jsonld-java.

I don't know.. `https://www.w3.org/2018/credentials/undefinedTerm#someClaim` feels like a contradiction to me. This sounds like `someClaim` is "undefined", and I understand this is exactly the intention, but now that term can actually...

> URGNA2012 (Universal RDF Graph Normalization Algorithm 2012) didn't do this as it only dealt with RDF Graphs, not RDF Datasets, and so we just shoved all the RDF signature...