Issues to fix before 1.0 DCC

[onthebreeze]

Impacted sections

• https://uncefact.github.io/spec-untp/docs/specification/ConformityCredential

Issue Description

• Need to support text as well as numeric value in declaration / assessment Metric class.

[PatStLouis]

We would like to see codes added to the assessorLevelCode, assessmentLevelCode and attestationTypeCode to reflect regulator issued attestation. The current codes are aimed at third party issuance and doesn't quite fit our use case.

My suggestions are as follows:

assessorLevelCode

code: Regulator
name: Regulator Assessment
description: conformity assessment by a regulator

assessmentLevelCode

code: Regulated
name: Government regulation
description: conformity assessment delivered in relation to a regulation from a national or regional government

attestationTypeCode

code: permitting
name: permitting
description: An authorization document issued by a regulatory body.

[onthebreeze]

from brett:

Definition DPCC-01 “Assurance level” is incorrect, as it contradicts both the displayed Logical Model and the Implementation Guidance from the same Github page.
Definition number is wrong since there is already a DCC-01 (named ‘Authorised’, which relates to the issuing party).
‘Assurance level’ is the wrong term, since the definition provided exclusively relates to the ‘endorsement’ entity (which is cross-referenced as ‘authorisation’ in the Implementation Guidance), as well as being potentially confused with the unrelated term ‘assessment_level which describes ‘how assured is the assessment process’.
It is indicated to be a MUST, which seems incorrect, as an endorsement (or authorisation, however named) should be optional

[PatStLouis]

Found this bug with the DCC, the schema has the credentialSubject.assessment[*].assessedFacility.locationInformation as a Location object, however Location isn't defined in the dcc context. The DCC should have a Location type defined with the terms plusCode, geoLocation and geoBoundary defined.

[PatStLouis]

Another bug I've found. There are 2 objects which currently break json ld processing.

The credentialSubject and the credentialSubject.assessment[*].

The credentialSubject is typed with ["ConformityAttestation", "Attestation"].

These two types (ConformityAttestation and Attestation) define the same terms differently, causing a protected term redefinition error.

The credentialSubject.assessment[*] has the same problem, but with the Declaration and the ConformityAssessment types.

I believe this error has been introduced in 0.5.0 as it didn't seem to occur before. I would suggest to remove the types Attestation and Declaration respectively as the simplest solution.