Clarify relationship between "iss" and "issuer"

[selfissued]

The VC Data Model spec says this about the issuer:

The value of the issuer property MUST be either a URI or an object containing an id property.

The VC-JWT spec says this about the issuer:

iss MUST represent the issuer property of a verifiable credential or the holder property of a verifiable presentation.

The JWT spec says this about iss:

The "iss" value is a case-sensitive string

That means that that if issuer is an object containing an id property, it is incompatible with iss, since iss is a string. We clearly need language describing this type mismatch and how to avoid it and/or what the iss value must be when issuer is an object that is not a string.

Attn: @OR13

[OR13]

I don't agree, I think issuer as an object is legal according to the core data model, and compatible with iss WHEN, a clean mapping in normative text exists of the following format:

If issuer is a string, iss MUST match issuer.

If issuer is an object with an id value, iss MUST match the id value.

This is how we support JWT / Data Integrity Proof graph based interoperability today.

The solution is to refine the production / consumption rules to make these transformations unambiguous.

[selfissued]

Can you write a PR to do this, @OR13 ?

The solution is to refine the production / consumption rules to make these transformations unambiguous.

Do you agree with this proposed resolution, @Sakurann ?

[TallTed]

Does iss map to issuer or issuanceDate? See https://github.com/w3c/vc-jwt/pull/11/files#r1000766891

[Sakurann]

Does iss map to issuer or issuanceDate?

In v1.1 it's issuer.

[alenhorvat]

If issuer is a string, iss MUST match issuer.
If issuer is an object with an id value, iss MUST match the id value.

Fully support this.

[OR13]

#111 (comment)

^ related

[Sakurann]

PR merged