Canonicalization is easy using the existing CBOR and JCS RFCs (as I noted before), and implementation of JCS is something you might use as a test for a junior dev, because it's such a trivial to write: https://github.com/erdtman/canonicalize/blob/master/lib/canonicalize.js

Yeah, where does it say you need to use anything but plain JSON/JWT? That's the most common variant, and most people choose it because they don't want to process as LD/RDF.

You can use VCs as plain JSON, there's no RDF forced on anything: https://www.w3.org/TR/vc-data-model/#json

But they're using the JWT variant if you look at the docs, not JSON-LD/RDF, and the VCs aren't involved with the app datastore, it's just a thing used for signed proofs completely unrelated to Nostr/social network stuff.

The VCs appear to be orthogonal/separate from any of the app data storage/interaction layer, and I see they primarily use the JWT variant of VCs anyway. The data storage/interaction part is listed as DAG-CBOR, so no RDF involved. But aside from all these protocols there's a simple JSON canonicalization RFC here people should use instead of rolling their own, imo: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8785

Quick question: I've seen so many inaccurate takes here that are wildly off when I go check out those materials and code they published, so is it possible that there's a sort of highly tribal bias here that's preventing people from being thoughtful in their assessments? I like learning about all these protocols, and find it a bit odd people aren't willing to do so.

Whew, luckily I looked into it and that's not how it works at all. Verifiable Credentials are just a signed proof format where you take a statement about something/person and signing it with your ID's key. No blockchain involved. Pretty cool that's been standardized, and I heard even LinkedIn is accepting VCs for proof of employment now.

Yeah, I'm confused too and asked the same from folks here with no real responses. Why would VCs be posed as a "Nostr killer"? I never heard their team claim that. I think the app data, comms, binary streams, etc. part is what they're calling "DWeb Nodes", something that seems entirely separate from VCs.

Yeah, been asking the same question. Seems like folks are confusing an orthogonal signed credential format that's used outside the system with what looks like a completely separate app/data layer they're calling "DWeb Nodes" , which don't appear to have anything to do with VCs 🤷‍♂️

I found the link to their reference implementation, and it looks like soon = now, at least for a fair amount of the features from that areweyet site: https://www.npmjs.com/package/@tbd54566975/web5

Also, looks like nothing relies on RDF, so what was all that about again?

Nothing about Web5 relies on RDF, from my understanding of their work, so why are you talking about it?

What could such a 'bridge' look like for them, as you understand the two systems?