Design: AnonCreds Credentials using the W3C Standard

[Artemkaaas]

This PR contains the very first DRAFT working version of the design documents connected to adoption of AnonCreds Verifiable Credentials and Presentations for the W3C Verifiable Credentials Data Model Standard.
The main goal of this PR is starting the discussion on the proposed format and implementation path / API.

Currently, the PR contains two main documents:

• spec.md - document describing how AnonCreds credentials and presentations should be represented in the W3C Data Model
  • this document should not be merged into this repository
  • It should be moved and included into AnonCreds specification (I believe)
  • I put it here to have a single place for discussions
• w3c-representation.md - document describing proposed anoncreds-rs API changes and implementation path.

[TimoGlastra]

Nice, this looks good. I've left some comments and questions, also to get a better understanding of how the result of this work can be integrated into AFJ (and ACA-Py)

[berendsliedrecht]

I am not very up to date with the intricate details of the w3c vc data model 1.1 and data integrity proof so if I mentioned something that does not make sense, feel free to ignore it.

[ashcherbakov]

A list of open questions (some with proposed answers) in one place (to be extended / updated): link

[Artemkaaas]

I opened PR in anoncreds-spec repository which add W3C section into AnonCreds credentials specification.

I'm going to exclude context.json and spec.md files from this PR (anoncreds-rs) as these files included into mentioned above PR to anoncreds-spec repository

[vortex-hue]

Nice documents. Do you have a design [E-R Diagram or anything related to that] explaining how this all adds up?

[Artemkaaas]

#266 (comment)

@vortex-hue what do you mean? The flow itself keeps the same as before (Spec). Now you have a set of parallel methods to get the data in a different format.

[swcurran]

Anyone know why a test is failing here? Re-ran the failed test and got it in Ubuntu GHA (Windows the previous time). We can merge this documentation only PR with this, but didn't want the error to be ignored.

[Artemkaaas]

@swcurran Should I clean the section with questions before merge?

[swcurran]

@swcurran Should I clean the section with questions before merge?

It would be appreciated. Nice to have as well changing the “in the future” items to be now. For example, the for example, the first line that says (more or less) “Currently we don’t support W3C VC Format”. It should say something like “Here is how we support W3C VC Format…”.

Not crucial, but this will be long lived docs, so clean up is good.