W3C Verifiable Credentials are better than JOSE because they support decentralization and semantic interoperability, in addition to digital signatures over JSON.
1
12
GIF
I view those as orthogonal requirements and honestly, it’s my biggest reservation that I need to accept the ‘whole package.’
2
4
@trbouma Are you wanting to verify things that are more in the scope of private namespaces? JSON-LD and Semantic Interoperability is vital to the success of the knowledge of what’s being verified. Hence the Knowledge Graph.
2
2
Two separate problems. Problem 1 is about intention of the actors. Problem 2 is about semantics of the information. I’m not discounting either, but if we are to work at global scale, they need to be solved as independent problems,
2
4
JOSE supports authenticity and intention, and is used to power most consumer and enterprise identity. 44% of all websites rely on JSON-LD. Both problems have been solved independently. W3C Verifiable Credentials leverage the best solutions for both problems.
2
1
2
That's quite a claim. Are you talking about the JSON-LD that Google recommends people publish for their rich snippets and such? Because I guarantee you about 99.9% of that is treating it as plain JSON.
4
4
w3techs.com/technologies/det…
1
yeah my point stands. The vast majority of publishers publishing JSON-LD on their websites for Google to consume care approximately 0% about the LD part of the JSON-LD, and frankly care about 1% about the JSON part. They just want Google to read the website.
1
5
Your point is it's easy to adopt JSON-LD without understanding its value, and a lot of people have done this?... Are you saying it's a bad thing people adopt things they don't understand? If you're are at IETF let's chat IRL.
2
1
2
Replying to @OR13b @trbouma @mfosterio
I'm saying the LD is irrelevant when most publishers and consumers are ignoring it. It's great the JSON-LD looks mostly like JSON, but IMO the LD part adds very little value. fwiw I was able to implement vaccine QR code VCs without dealing with the LD part too!

Nov 5, 2022 · 11:42 PM UTC

7
3
Replying to @aaronpk @trbouma @mfosterio
You mean the smart health card ones that use the deflate header on JWS? Which RFC defines compressed JWTs again?
Replying to @aaronpk @trbouma @mfosterio
You can implement many "token" schemes without using JSON-LD... If we're really just talking about rebranding tokens to credentials to appeal to a broader base, you don't need a standard to do that imo... You need a marketing department :)
1
They took all the good parts of Verifiable Credentials and turned it into the SmartHealth spec! spec.smarthealth.cards Notice you never need to bring in any JSON-LD library or deal with namespaces or canonicalization, yet it's completely decentralized!
1
3
more replies
Replying to @aaronpk @OR13b @trbouma
@aaronpk There is a movement towards decentralization and openness the value is increasing by demand.
1
2
I mean, you don't have to convince me of decentralization and openness. I'm not even tweeting this on twitter, it's coming from my own website, one of many decentralized nodes on the internet.
2
2
more replies
Replying to @aaronpk @OR13b @trbouma @mfosterio
What value do you expect? There are very few companies that can crawl the web for schema.org JSON-LD and then build large KGs from it.
1
1
Replying to @aaronpk @OR13b @trbouma @mfosterio
That s side VCI decided proactively to not include cause certain people at MSFT really don’t like JSON-LD.
1
2
Replying to @aaronpk @OR13b @trbouma
Any data publicly published with JSON-LD can be queried with decentralized query languages like SPARQL. When you want to do a trust claim you are verifying public data against a Linked Open Vocabulary for transparency. There is more JSON-LD published because of these benefits.
2
Replying to @aaronpk @trbouma
@aaronpk At the end of the day it can be treated as plain JSON. By adding LD there is added semantic syntactical sugar. I hope @OR13b opens your mind to the benefits during your visit.
1