IEEE Ontology Standards Working Group Credential Example #963
Comments
|
Thank you @OR13. Great example. Let's start with just "Person" above, which would be replaced with the full line: "type": ["http://www.ontologyrepository.com/CommonCoreOntologies/Person", "JobType"], Some benefits:
Current Limitations:
|
|
@jimschoening1 Its not in scope for the vocab thread imo, because these are terms you want to explicitly define in an interoperable way, here is a JSON-LD version of what you are suggestion. {
"@id": "did:example:456",
"@type": "http://www.ontologyrepository.com/CommonCoreOntologies/Person"
}In this case, your intention is to communicate that Maybe others would want to use https://schema.org/Person because of Google / Search engines. The nice part of the VC Data Model is that people can choose for themselves, and machines can process the results with existing and well adopted standards. |
|
We can expand the example by including specific claims that are consistent with {
"@id": "did:example:456",
"@type": "http://www.ontologyrepository.com/CommonCoreOntologies/Person",
"https://schema.org/taxID": 55555555
} |
|
Can you propose some additional semantic structures from |
|
Let first try to resolve this one item. Today, developers choose terms from many models and standards (all siloed), or define their own terms, or use terms they don't define. Other applications can only process such data if mapped in advance, and such mappings grow at a rate of n squared, which doesn't scale. Wouldn't it be better if the world had a standard for these terms, so disparate data sources could map to it for data integration and sharing? |
|
@OR13 Orrie, would you care to get on a video call to synch up? |
|
@jimschoening1 sure, send me an email orie @ transmute. industries. |
|
@OR13 Orie, http://www.ontologyrepository.com/CommonCoreOntologies/designativename The IEEE interim PURL server should be ready for our team's testing any day now, but the final IEEE PURL server (with domain name purl.ieee.org) will take longer. If interested, all are welcome to join the IEEE Ontology Standards Working Group Kick-off meeting next Wed. I'll post the open invitation next, which can be openly shared. Jim |
|
All are invited to this open meeting Wed 9th: IEEE Ontology Standards Working Group Kick-Off Meeting Meeting Link: https://ieeesa.webex.com/ieeesa/j.php?MTID=m0a1580902fd731e8a143c652bdf97a15 Wednesday, Nov 9, 2022 1:00 pm | 1 hour | (UTC-04:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada) Join by video system Join by phone Access code: 233 883 59801 |
{
"@context": [
"https://www.w3.org/2018/credentials/v1",
{ "@vocab": "http://www.ontologyrepository.com/CommonCoreOntologies/" }
],
"id": "http://example.edu/credentials/1872",
"type": ["VerifiableCredential"],
"issuer": {
"id": "did:example:123",
},
"issuanceDate": "2010-01-01T19:23:24Z",
"credentialSubject": {
"id": "did:example:456",
"type": ["citizen"],
"designativename": "Jane Doe",
"biologicalsex": "F"
}
}I'm not sure of the domain for "biologicalsex". With a more complex context, we could name the term in json without changing the IRI term defintion, for example:
{
"@context": [
"https://www.w3.org/2018/credentials/v1",
{ "@vocab": "http://www.ontologyrepository.com/CommonCoreOntologies/", "name": "http://www.ontologyrepository.com/CommonCoreOntologies/designativename" }
],
"id": "http://example.edu/credentials/1872",
"type": ["VerifiableCredential"],
"issuer": {
"id": "did:example:123"
},
"issuanceDate": "2010-01-01T19:23:24Z",
"credentialSubject": {
"id": "did:example:456",
"type": ["citizen"],
"name": "Jane Doe",
"biologicalsex": "F"
}
}If we wanted to make it easy for anyone to "understand" these credentials, and save space on the wire, we could map the context extension object to a URI. http://www.ontologyrepository.com/credentials/v1 -> |
|
@OR13 Casey Rock (who took over the US Army Ontology Program when I retired) and I agree your code can point to anything we can post. The IEEE interim PURL server should be ready for testing any day now, so we will set up things up there so it works for this type of use. Also, the ontologies will probably be switching to opaque identities (but where the ontology tools provide the labels in various languages for human understandability), so we'll need to test how that works. We should be back in a couple weeks with an operational demo. Let us know if you have any questions. |
|
Boy-oh-boy (no pun intended), is |
|
Ted,
Yes, this is a sensitive topic, so let’s seek consensus using the standardization process. Here’s how:
1. Review how IEEE P3195.1 Common Core Ontology (in draft) defines ‘biological sex’ at www.ontologyrepository.com/CommonCoreOntologies/biologicalsex <http://www.ontologyrepository.com/CommonCoreOntologies/biologicalsex>
2. Propose your edits by creating a Gitlab issue at https://opensource.ieee.org/cco/CommonCoreOntologies/-/issues
3. Join IEEE Ontology Standards Working Group to build consensus for your changes. All are invited to our meeting tomorrow at 1300 EDT and monthly. See https://sagroups.ieee.org/oswg/
Jim Schoening
Chair, IEEE Ontology Standards Working Group
|
|
I might have thought what I wrote above would be sufficient for anyone already involved with the IEEE Onotology work to raise such an issue, but I've now done that work for you. |
The page you linked does not say anything about future meetings. Please confirm whether by "1300 EDT and monthly" you mean "1300 ET, the second Wednesday of every month"? |
|
Ted,
Thank you for submitting your concerns and proposed changes on the definition of BiologicalSex to https://opensource.ieee.org/cco/CommonCoreOntologies/-/issues/156 . If you don’t get a response by say Tues, I’ll find out which ontologist authored this and ask for their response. Thanks for you input.
The next monthly meeting will be the week of 12 Dec. I’ll let you know when it gets scheduled for. If your input get’s a thorough vetting on the issue tracker, it could be ready for the Dec agenda.
Thanks again for this contribution.
Jim Schoening
Chair, IEEE Ontology Standards Working Group.
From: Ted Thibodeau Jr ***@***.***>
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2022 5:57 PM
To: w3c/vc-data-model ***@***.***>
Cc: James Schoening ***@***.***>; Mention ***@***.***>
Subject: Re: [w3c/vc-data-model] IEEE Ontology Standards Working Group Credential Example (Issue #963)
I might have thought what I wrote above would be sufficient for anyone already involved with the IEEE Onotology work to raise such an issue, but I've now done that work for you <https://opensource.ieee.org/cco/CommonCoreOntologies/-/issues/156> .
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#963 (comment)> , or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AVUEFVDBGWM4WBSM3QV22K3WHV4TRANCNFSM6AAAAAARQBWFMQ> .
You are receiving this because you were mentioned. <https://github.com/notifications/beacon/AVUEFVBFYDEP6GSTNYXQ7TDWHV4TRA5CNFSM6AAAAAARQBWFMSWGG33NNVSW45C7OR4XAZNMJFZXG5LFINXW23LFNZ2KUY3PNVWWK3TUL5UWJTSOERIKE.gif> Message ID: ***@***.*** ***@***.***> >
|
|
Ted, Did you see the response to your comment (on the definition of Biological Sex at https://opensource.ieee.org/cco/CommonCoreOntologies/-/issues/156 ? It proposes some changes and seeks your feedback. |
|
At an Open Wallet Foundation (OWF) session on Tues, someone asked if the OWF wallet should hold personal data. Daniel Goldscheider and Tracy Kuhrt said yes. |
Thank you for the ping. I received email notification of the comment, but hadn't yet reached it in my overflowing inboxes. GitHub notifications are higher on my rotating review stack, so it got to me here first. Feedback posted. :-) |
|
Open Wallet Foundation participants are agreeing an all-purpose wallet should store data, including VC claim data. We're now discussing if a standard data model is needed for this data. W3C-VCDM does a good job but stops at claim data, so such a personal data model would pick up there. See this robust discussion on OWF Discord at https://discordapp.com/channels/1022962884864643214/1044329759347331213 |
|
@jimschoening1 — I think most if not all participants in this W3C VCDM work will agree with me when I say that we have made an active decision (and I encourage the OWF to adopt this same decision) NOT to create a "standard data model" for claims data, because at core, we believe that anyone should be able to use VCs to say anything about anything without any need to convince gatekeepers of such a "standard data model" and/or vocabulary/ies of the need to add their desired (or required!) attribute and/or values. (The OWF Discord link doesn't take me anywhere useful. After requiring me to click past 2 sales pages, it just says I found myself in a strange place without any text channels. I strongly advise that such barriers to entry be re-examined and eliminated if possible, if "robust participation" by new participants is desired by others, as it seems to be by you.) |
|
This would be a voluntary personal data standard, so a VC could refer to its terms if desired, could reference any other vocabulary, or make up its own terms and define them. Any other reasons this is not a good idea? |
|
Ah, so just another ontology/vocabulary, which might be used anywhere. I am generally of the opinion that it's better to use existing ontologies/vocabularies wholesale than to try to reinvent them or to cherry-pick from them, and to contribute improvements to those existing ontologies/vocabularies when they don't satisfy the immediate need. Of course, when there's a complete gap — no-one's ever built an ontology/vocabulary to describe the immediate subject matter — then it does make sense to build a new one from scratch. |
|
Will be presenting and demonstrating this work to Open Wallet Foundation (Architecture Task Group) on 23 Jan. The agenda topic will be something like 'Understandable VC Claim Data via Standard Ontologies.' We will demo how a VC issuer searches on the IEEE standard ontologies, finds desired term, inserts IRI in VC, which resolves to forthcoming IEEE PURL swerver. Verifier looks up IRI for standard semantics. The IEEE ontologies already have the most common terms, and new ones can be added to the draft standards within a few months. |
|
My Data Global is now actively working on a personal data model. 18 members are subscribed to their Slack channel at standard-personal-data-model on mydataglobal.slack.com. All are welcome. |
|
That slack is closed for registration or login.
…On Sat, 17 Dec 2022 at 00:51, James Schoening ***@***.***> wrote:
My Data Global is now actively working on a personal data model. 18
members are subscribed to their Slack channel at
standard-personal-data-model on mydataglobal.slack.com. All are welcome.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#963 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAHSDGN3BM2BKZBF5AIEE3LWNS2ZTANCNFSM6AAAAAARQBWFMQ>
.
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message
ID: ***@***.***>
|
|
From @jimschoening1
|
|
Semi related: #1007 |
|
The issue was discussed in a meeting on 2023-04-04
View the transcript1.6. IEEE Ontology Standards Working Group Credential Example (issue vc-data-model#963)See github issue vc-data-model#963. Kristina Yasuda: About IEEE Ontology Standards. I think we need Orie to see if he would volunteer.. |
|
I suggest closing this if there is no intention to provide exampled on industry ontologies. I think the current examples in the spec are weak, but we don't need to add an example based on IEEE unless there is strong consensus to do so. I am adding the pending close label. |
|
OK to close this, but here's current status:
|
|
No objections raised since marked |
Can we develop an example that leverages the IEEE Ontology work?
What claims would be best described by this ontology?
Let's start by getting a JSON example of a credential with some claims that we can look for good definitions for...
For example:
{ "@context": [ "https://www.w3.org/ns/credentials/v2", ], "id": "http://example.edu/credentials/1872", "type": ["VerifiableCredential", "NewCredentialType"], "issuer": { "id": "did:example:123", "type": ["Organization", "OrganizationType"] }, "issuanceDate": "2010-01-01T19:23:24Z", "credentialSubject": { "id": "did:example:456", "type": ["Person", "JobType"], "claimName": "claimValue" } }The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: