Update references to confidence and render methods.

[iherman]

Section §5.10 includes a (normative) definition for render and confidence methods. This inevitably leads to possible discrepancies, see, e.g., w3c/vc-confidence-method#34. I believe the simplest is to remove those definitions from the table. Possibly remove the whole of §5.10, unless new reserved extension points come to the fore.

That has consequences in the vocabulary definition, that should refer to the respective definitions in the render and confidence method specifications.

[iherman]

This was discussed during the vcwg meeting on 24 June 2026.

View the transcript

w3c/vc-data-model#1632

Brent: remove confidence and render methods from the VCDM spec
… This is definitely within our charter to do.
… It points out that because we're producing a confidence method specification and extension points should point to those specifications.

Ivan: That's one possibility. Another option is to delete the entire section.
… That will raise problems for the confidence and render methods. I think we can remove the whole section altogether. Something has to be done.

Brent: Sounds like this is class 2, editorial.

Ivan: Yes, maybe a bit more.

---

[iherman]

Before doing any editing on §5.10; there are two possible approaches

1. Removal of the table and leave the rest intact
2. Remove the whole section altogether.

I am in favor of (2). With the removal of confidence and render methods, the section just repeats what the essence of the JSON(-LD) model is: applications or further standardization work can add their own properties and classes. Other than that the section just refers to [1], which is a fairly outdated WG note that is clearly not maintained anyway.

[1] https://w3c.github.io/vc-extensions/

[iherman]

This was discussed during the vcwg meeting on 15 July 2026.

View the transcript

w3c/vc-data-model#1632

brent; Remove render and confidence models from the VCDM as they're being developed in separate doc. It's class 4 but we can do it within the charter as it comes from the new work we're chartered to fo.

brent: Right now the spec talks quite a bit about these extension points.

<dlongley> +1 to Joe's suggestion

<dmitriz> +1 to what Joe is saying -- we should definitely still point to that the properties exist

JoeAndrieu: My though is that we should still clarify that the properties exist but we shouldn't define them in the VCDM and just point to the other docs for those defs

phila: +1 to Joe

brent: Hopefully this gives Ivan the guidance he needs to raise a PR

brent: We have talked about all the open issues that are within scope

brent: That means we're done for this week.
… Any other topics?

brent: thanks scribe and dmitriz

brent: See you next week

---