Define Digital Wallet #386
Conversation
|
This should be part of the existing terminology work, and defined as a type of credential manager. https://github.com/w3c-fedid/digital-credentials/tree/tc-352-terminology |
|
#352 is an issue, this addresses part of it. See my comments there. A separate PR for “client platform” would be appreciated as part of the Model. “Credential Manager” is (or should be) defined by the Credential Management spec, not our spec. We can then link to it. |
|
We need to coordinate across the three working groups to decide who owns each definition. @msporny, hi! 👋 can you help us here? We would like define “Digital Wallet” formally in a spec and wrap “holder”. We are happy for VC 2.0 to own the definition if it’s generic enough, but right now what’s defined in VC 2.0 doesn’t exactly match how we define a “digital wallet” (this PR). let’s coordinate 🤗 |
|
An alternative name to a “wallet” could be a “credential provider” (what on Apple’s platform’s is called a “Document Provider” by the Identity Document Framework). @mohamedamir, what’s the equivalent on Android? Any idea? Perhaps then “digital wallet” can remain a colloquial term… as apps that hold credentials also do a lot of other things (e.g., the MyGov app from the Australian government has a wallet but also lets me lodge my taxes, has an “inbox”, and access a range of government services). Here’s a screenshot showing the different things it provides: |
|
Proposing we close this PR in favor of the existing issue and PR (#387). Agenda+ to discuss closure. |
|
@timcappalli, as I mentioned in #387 (which was created after this PR), we should add one definition at a time. See also my comments in the relevant issue. |
Credential Provider is the closest IMHO. FWIW: the API itself is called Holder API. |
Hi, yes, we have an exported term for that called a https://www.w3.org/TR/vc-data-model-2.0/#dfn-credential-repositories That said, we have an active VCWG updating the v2.1 specs and are happy to update the terminology to reflect the current state of affairs based on the needs of the DC API spec. I expect we'll want to tweak that definition a bit. With all my hats off, though, I'll warn against the usage of the term "digital wallet" as the primary term. It's fine as an imperfect synonym but might not be the term we'll want to use in 5-10 years. The reasoning being that there are other sorts of apps (and websites) that might hold digital credentials that are not considered digital wallets. For example, ride hailing apps or retailer apps do not consider themselves "digital wallets" but are likely to hold digital credentials in the future. We might want to shift to say something like "credential management application", where a "digital wallet" is a subset of that class of application and a "credential repository" is the storage portion of that application. There is a lot of this discussion happening in the Verifiable Credential API for Lifecycle Management incubation work that's been happening for the past several years as well. I note some disagreement in this PR, so will wait until you guys explicitly ask the VCWG to raise an issue and modify the spec. I expect once we have that decision, we can rapidly make changes to align terminology to what the DC API spec needs.
What do you mean by "wrap"? We have an exported term for holder here: https://www.w3.org/TR/vc-data-model-2.0/#dfn-holders The terminology in the VC spec probably needs some rework at this point -- define digital wallet, define digital credential, specify that mdocs, VCs, etc. are a subclass of digital credential... specify that digital wallet is a subclass of credential management application (or whatever we can find consensus on), etc. In any case, the VCWG is ready, willing, and able to coordinate on this. |
Agreed, and that's why There is no official ask from the Fed ID WG to the VC WG at this time. The ask appears to be from an individual without working group consensus. |
|
@msporny wrote:
What we mean is that a "digital wallet" is a "holder", but also does other stuff (per what's defined in this PR). But that it is a holder is the critical bit. |
|
@timcappalli wrote:
All PRs start mostly without group consensus so that we can have something to reach consensus on (I'm not aware of any group consensus to send #387 - particularly given the feedback provided in #352 (comment)). It is common place to coordinate across groups where there's strong overlapping interests. Cross-collaboration across working groups is generally considered good practice (or at least, being good neighbors), particularly where there is strong shared interests and where we already depend on their work (as we do on the VC group). It would be a dereliction of duty, as an Editor of this specification, to not reach out to the VC folks at this stage for their input. |
Imma be pedantic only because we're talking about definitions that are probably going to stick. Per the VCWG definitions -- "Holder" is a role that an entity plays -- that role has the responsibility of holding on to digital credentials. They do so via an application (software or hardware)... so I'd say that a "digital wallet" is a type of "credential management application" used by a "holder" for the purposes of receiving, holding, managing, and presenting digital credentials. +1 to get the VCWG involved -- we love bikeshedding terminology like this (for better or worse). |
|
Pedantic is good! And yes, we totally want longevity with these definitions. Ok, let me put that into a cocktail mixer and see what comes out. 🍸 appreciate the help @msporny. |
|
Ok, @msporny, tried to integrate your suggestions and clarifications. |
|
@timcappalli, I think this is ready to go. Please take a look. @TallTed, mind also having a look? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull Request Overview
This pull request standardizes terminology throughout the index.html file by replacing informal references to "digital wallet" and "wallet" with the defined term "[=digital wallet=]" and introduces a formal definition for "Digital Wallet" to improve specification clarity and precision.
- Systematically replaced all informal "digital wallet(s)" and "wallet(s)" references with defined term notation "[=digital wallet=]" or "[=digital wallets=]"
- Added a comprehensive definition for "Digital Wallet" including its role as a credential manager and relationship to the holder concept
- Enhanced consistency in terminology usage across the entire specification document
Tip: Customize your code reviews with copilot-instructions.md. Create the file or learn how to get started.
Co-authored-by: Ted Thibodeau Jr <[email protected]>
timcappalli
left a comment
timcappalli
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Adding in a definition for "wallet" and "digital wallet" makes sense as that is the more consumer / end user term for a credential manager, but IMO, the spec text should use the more technical term, credential manager.
| requests=], ensuring that sites cannot silently query for nor issue | ||
| digital credentials, nor communicate with wallet providers, without the | ||
| user's active participation and confirmation of each action. | ||
| digital credentials, nor communicate with [=wallet=] providers, without |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| digital credentials, nor communicate with [=wallet=] providers, without | |
| digital credentials, nor communicate with [=credential managers=], without |
| <li>Enable platform-provided credential selection UX when multiple wallet | ||
| applications have credentials that match a [=digital |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| <li>Enable platform-provided credential selection UX when multiple wallet | |
| applications have credentials that match a [=digital | |
| <li>Enable platform-provided credential selection UX when multiple [=credential | |
| managers=] have credentials that match a [=digital |
| credential/presentation request=]. | ||
| </li> | ||
| <li>Enable platform-provided wallet selection UX when multiple wallet | ||
| <li>Enable platform-provided [=wallet=] selection UX when multiple wallet |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| <li>Enable platform-provided [=wallet=] selection UX when multiple wallet | |
| <li>Enable platform-provided [=credential manager=] selection UX when multiple wallet |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this one should be [=digital wallets=] (until we generalize this) - the use of digital implies only displaying applications that qualify as digital wallets.
| and regulatory environments and may need to be collected by the | ||
| digital wallet before sharing information with the [=verifier=], or | ||
| by the [=verifier=] itself before initiating the request. With | ||
| [=digital wallet=] before sharing information with the [=verifier=], |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| [=digital wallet=] before sharing information with the [=verifier=], | |
| [=credential manager=] before sharing information with the [=verifier=], |
| credential request to a [=digital wallet=], and which [=digital | ||
| wallet=] to select. This is due to the information disclosure that |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| credential request to a [=digital wallet=], and which [=digital | |
| wallet=] to select. This is due to the information disclosure that | |
| credential request to a [=credential manager=], and which [=credential | |
| manager=] to select. This is due to the information disclosure that |
| The {{DigitalCredentialGetRequest}} dictionary represents a [=digital | ||
| credential/presentation request=]. It is used to specify an [=digital | ||
| credential/exchange protocol=] and some [=digital credential/request | ||
| data=], which the user agent MAY match against software used by a holder, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| data=], which the user agent MAY match against software used by a holder, | |
| data=], which the user agent MAY match against the holder's [=credential manager=]. |
| credential/exchange protocol=] and some [=digital credential/request | ||
| data=], which the user agent MAY match against software used by a holder, | ||
| such as a digital wallet. | ||
| such as a [=digital wallet=]. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| such as a [=digital wallet=]. |
| digital wallet to the [=issuer=] (verifier-issuer linkability). The | ||
| former is a property that can be maintained by the [=holder=] and | ||
| [=issuer=], e.g. through issuing fresh credentials for individual | ||
| [=digital wallet=] to the [=issuer=] (verifier-issuer linkability). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| [=digital wallet=] to the [=issuer=] (verifier-issuer linkability). | |
| [=credential manager=] to the [=issuer=] (verifier-issuer linkability). |
| the [=digital wallet=] application owns this decision. While some | ||
| [=digital wallets=] can be considered [=user agents=], it is generally |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| the [=digital wallet=] application owns this decision. While some | |
| [=digital wallets=] can be considered [=user agents=], it is generally | |
| the [=credential manager=] application owns this decision. While some | |
| [=credential managers=] can be considered [=user agents=], it is generally |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
My preference would be to leave this one just a "digital wallet(s)".
| digital wallet application</a> before user confirmation (keeping in | ||
| mind <a href="#multiple-user-agents">considerations for integrating | ||
| multiple cooperating user agents</a>). | ||
| [=digital wallet=] application</a> before user confirmation (keeping |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| [=digital wallet=] application</a> before user confirmation (keeping | |
| [=credential manager=] application</a> before user confirmation (keeping |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This one will result in invalid markup (two nested <a> elements). Also, I think this somewhat changes the sentence.
|
@timcappalli, I wonder if we should do this in two parts? Your suggestions seem to broaden the scope of the privacy section to the more general "credential manager" concept, which MAY be ok - but I think we should be really careful with broadening the terminology, @johannhof, can you check also if you concur with the changes. I'm weary of changing things in the privacy section with @timcappalli's suggestions unless you also think it's ok to use the broader credential manager definition. Happy to discuss or we can spin up a separate PR? |
Closes #???
Introduces a formal definition for "Digital Wallet", clarifying its role and relationship to the "holder" concept. These changes improve clarity, precision, and alignment with the specification's terminology. Consistently use the defined term "[=digital wallet=]" in place of previous informal references like "digital wallet" or "wallet".
Preview | Diff