An alternate approach to expressing JSON formulations with VC about vc-data-model

[cwebber]

We talked more or less about this on the call today. The above isn't too far off from what was said on the call... while there were a variety of points raised, most seemed to converge on "we don't want people overwhelmed with the -LD side of things if all they're familiar with is JSON, but we also don't want to drop the -LD". (We didn't formally reach consensus on this though, I'm just summarizing some discussion.)

One option discussed is how ActivityStreams, ActivityPub, and Web Annotations to a lesser extent have taken the "this can be understood as just JSON" approach, and at least as in the former two you can pass in an implied context so that even more naively written JSON can be read as JSON-LD. Maybe mentioning how to apply the context can happen later in the document, or as more of a side-note earlier, and have a section at the end explaining how to read it as JSON-LD, as well as some other formats.

[BigBlueHat]

Just said similar things over at #23 (comment)

[msporny]

I think we more or less do what the original issue raised said to do. Lead with JSON, soft pedal JSON-LD (although probably not as much as you may have wanted us to @jtibbetts, but only because people wanted to see full JSON-LD examples):

vc-data-model/index.html

Lines 973 to 980 in 700263a

	<pre class="example" title="A simple verifiable credential">{
	"id": "http://example.gov/credentials/3732",
	"type": ["Credential", "ProofOfAgeCredential"],
	"issuer": "https://dmv.example.gov",
	"issued": "2010-01-01",
	"claim": {
	"id": "did:example:ebfeb1f712ebc6f1c276e12ec21",
	"ageOver": 21

There is still a bit of repetition, but I don't quite know what to do about that.

I'm closing this issue. Please re-open it or raise a new issue with more specific requests if you don't agree.