Design choices in expressing a verifiable claim about vc-data-model

[msporny]

Hey @jtibbetts, trying to address this issue for the VC 1.0 work, which we're trying to wrap up so we can start implementations/test suites.

Should these be included in the VC or is it assumed that they should be gotten by dereferencing the issuer URI?

This is really a design choice that the issuer community should make. The spec contains properties that it thinks are the bare minimum today. If someone wants other properties, we should raise specific issues on those.

What I think we need are a set of guidelines for what properties is meaningful to include in the VC.

The 1.0 spec lists properties that are meaningful to include in the VC. If there are specific properties that the spec is missing, based on input from the issuer community (for example), then the issuer community should suggest additional fields at this time before we wrap up the 1.0 work.

I'm closing this issue as it seems as if the group has consensus over the current set of issuer fields. If new fields are required, a new issue should be opened for the suggested field.