Vocabulary fixes — replacement of #1241

[iherman]

This is actually a replacement of #1241 : it includes all the changes in there, plus the missing pieces in #1241 (comment).

Making PR on top of #1241 would have led to problems because, in the meantime, the main branch has changed too much (e.g., the diagrams have been added), so it was simpler to create a PR on top of main rather than fix/vocab-issues

[OR13]

This PR does not include the correction to credential graph. A credential graph is not a credential.

[iherman]

This PR does not include the correction to credential graph. A credential graph is not a credential.

The vocabulary file on the main branch already has this change:

vc-data-model/vocab/credentials/v2/vocabulary.yml

Line 64 in 03b0d90

label: Verifiable credential graph

[decentralgabe]

@iherman should this include w3c/vc-json-schema#206 as well?

[OR13]

@iherman can you please update the label for this section of the vocabulary? That is the change that is not carried over from the previous PR

[OR13]

Similarly for the credential graph label... The labels should distinguish the concepts. It's not helpful to call everything simply a "verifiable credential"... When it could be a set of separate credential graphs or a Verifiable Credential that is not a Verifiable Credential Graph.

[iherman]

@iherman can you please update the label for this section of the vocabulary? That is the change that is not carried over from the previous PR!
Screenshot_20230821-123925.png

Oops, sorry. I mixed it up. Done.

[iherman]

Similarly for the credential graph label... The labels should distinguish the concepts. It's not helpful to call everything simply a "verifiable credential"... When it could be a set of separate credential graphs or a Verifiable Credential that is not a Verifiable Credential Graph.

I do not understand what you want to say. Is there a change you propose in the vocab file? If so, can you put that explicitly in the comment?

[OR13]

this was the change I was looking for.

[OR13]

@iherman I was doing code reviews from my phone, its possible I missed this in your original PR.

The general comment was to address the labels and try to provide unique language that distinguished all the various "verifiable credential" labels.

It seems like my feedback has been addressed.

[seabass-labrax]

I agree with the discussion in the 2023-08-22 meeting that this PR is substantially similar to @iherman's earlier PR and so should inherit that PR's approvals.

[msporny]

Normative, multiple reviews, changes requested and made, no objections, merging.