I view those as orthogonal requirements and honestly, it’s my biggest reservation that I need to accept the ‘whole package.’

@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.

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,

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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 :)