Rulebook extension

[flo0x]

Proposed Rulebook Extension

In order to achieve a faster integration of wallet providers in the different MVPs from different partners, I propose an extension of actual rulebooks.

Each Rulebook should publish its assets using a version-controlled and standardized directory structure, including:

• Versioned attestation schemas

• Versioned format-specific schemas

• Standard and business-specific DCQL queries

• support of many sample data for different business scenarios

    │   ├── <attestation_name>.schema.json     <-- W3C core business definitions
    │   └── <attestation_name>.schema.meta.json <-- Localization translation catalog
    │
    ├── 02_format_schemas/
    │   ├── <attestation_name>.dc-sdjwt.schema.json      <-- SD-JWT W3C validation wrapper
    │   ├── <attestation_name>.dc-sdjwt.schema.meta.json <-- IETF VCTM UI display metadata
    │   ├── <attestation_name>.mdoc.schema.json          <-- ISO/IEC mdoc binary profile
    │   └── <attestation_name>.json-ld.schema.json       <-- JSON-LD validation wrapper
    │
    ├── 03_dcql_queries/
    │   ├── <attestation_name>.dcql.standard.json        <-- Default query (Balanced data)
    │   ├── <attestation_name>.dcql.bu1.minimum.json     <-- Minimal ID check (Faster processing)
    │   └── <attestation_name>.dcql.pa3.maximum.json     <-- Full audit / EDD compliance check
    │
    └── 04_samples/
        └── <attestation_name>.sample.json               <-- Synthesized mock payloa
  

For example:

rulebook-schemas/
└── <attestation_name>/
    └── <version>/                         # e.g. v1.0/
        ├── 01_schema/
        │   ├── <attestation_name>.schema.json <-- W3C core business definitions
        │   └── <attestation_name>.schema.meta.json<-- Localization translation catalog
        │
        ├── 02_format_schemas/
        │   ├── <attestation_name>.dc-sdjwt.schema.json<-- SD-JWT W3C validation wrapper
        │   ├── <attestation_name>.dc-sdjwt.schema.meta.json<-- IETF VCTM UI display metadata
        │   ├── <attestation_name>.mdoc.schema.json
        │   └── <attestation_name>.json-ld.schema.json
        │
        ├── 03_dcql_queries/
        │   ├── <attestation_name>.dcql.standard.json<-- Default query (Balanced data)
        │   ├── <attestation_name>.dcql.bu1..json<-- BU1 (minimum)
        │   └── <attestation_name>.dcql.pa3..json<-- Full audit / EDD compliance check(maximum)
        │
        └── 04_samples/
            ├── <attestation_name>.sample1.json<-- Synthesized mock payload
            ├── <attestation_name>.sample2.json
            └── <attestation_name>.sample3.json

Benefits
This approach would allow us to scale much more easily:

• Clear version control for schemas and queries
• Support for the same attestation across different formats/flavours (SD-JWT, mdoc, JSON-LD, and potentially others later)
• Localization and country-specific extensions
• format flexibility
• Standardized DCQL queries that can be directly reused across MVPs
• Easy extension of DCQL queries based on specific business requirements
• Simple cross-partner sharing and reuse
• Different sample datasets for different business scenarios
• and most importantly, once a company has selected its Business Wallet provider, it should be able to integrate the required schemas and DCQL queries into its existing business processes quickly and easily, and directly starts to pilot the use case ( implementation if is required)

The main benefit is that companies participating in multiple MVPs would not need to reinvent the same schemas and queries for every use case.

The Company Information Rulebook extension is already prepared.
Please check it here
https://github.com/flo0x/webuild-attestations/tree/main/rulebooks/rb-company-info

[Saramandus]

Hi @flo0x, what is this? ;) There are many issues that have been added to the WP4 AG in the last couple of weeks that I don't quite know how to handle... Could you add some more context? Is it uc specific and has ended up in the wrong repo? Or should it be in the rulebook repo? Please advice.

[flo0x]

@Saramandus
I wasn’t sure where best to place this. It technically belongs in the Rulebooks, but since it would affect all Rulebook, then I was thinking that WP4 might be the better place.

As you already know, we have started working with different companies across different MVPs. At the moment, it is quite complicated for companies participating in multiple MVPs to prepare their business use cases, because schemas and DCQL queries are not consistently available and reusable across the different MVPs
My proposal is therefore to extend the Rulebook approach in a way that fits very well with SIRO presentation in the last call.

This would make it much easier to directly reuse the relevant schemas and standard DCQL queries across different MVPs.
Question : should I create a PullRequest in WP4 for that ? or I am starting with the attestsation in BU1 and PA3 and see the results in one month ?

What are your thoughts on this proposal, @lalc @leifj?

[flo0x]

@lalc @leifj what is your opinion ?
In different use cases, they start with MVP preparation, and this will be helpful.

[Saramandus]

Is this issue obsolete after the discussions in the QA session last week? @TorbjornUll @flo0x @lalc