First item of VC context is a URL with the value https://www.w3.org/ns/credentials/v2

[absoludity]

While working on a downstream use-case, I noticed that the existing schema checks only that the context contains "https://www.w3.org/ns/credentials/v2", while the v2 spec explicitly says the following regarding context:

The value of the @context property MUST be an ordered set where the first item is a URL with the value https://www.w3.org/ns/credentials/v2.

With that in mind, I think the use of prefixItems to ensure that the first item is the expected URL is more accurate.

While there, I also noted that:

An ordered set is a list with the additional semantic that it must not contain the same item twice.

hence the "uniqueItems" addition.

Tests still pass with those changes (I was unsure if I should add examples that should fail and update the tests to ensure they fail? Let me know), although I do get the warning:

strict mode: "prefixItems" is 1-tuple, but minItems or maxItems/items are not specified or different at path "#/properties/%40context"

which appears to be a known ajv issue.

I was also keen to address the last part of the spec for context:

Subsequent items in the ordered set MUST be composed of any combination of URLs and objects,

but will do that in another PR if it's wanted.

Finally, where do I sign or agree to the w3c patent policy? (apparently the company I'm working for - gosource.com.au - isn't an affiliate member, but I've created an account at https://www.w3.org/account/request/ and listed gosource as my organisation link, which it allowed, and now linked my GH account)

Thanks

[iherman]

Finally, where do I sign or agree to the w3c patent policy? (apparently the company I'm working for - gosource.com.au - isn't an affiliate member)

I do not think this PR is "substantial", meaning that it proposes a change to handle a bug, and not to add a feature with potential patent concerns. I will validate this PR.

[w3cbot]

iherman marked as non substantive for IPR from ash-nazg.

[absoludity]

I do not think this PR is "substantial", meaning that it proposes a change to handle a bug, and not to add a feature with potential patent concerns. I will validate this PR.

Thanks. FWIW, I've created a W3C account and linked my GH profile... not sure if that equates to agreeing to the patent policy, but am happy to do so either way.

[iherman]

Thanks. FWIW, I've created a W3C account and linked my GH profile... not sure if that equates to agreeing to the patent policy, but am happy to do so either way.

There would be some additional admin steps to take, but these are now unnecessary. Next time, maybe :-)