[IdA schema definition] typos

[Takahiko Kawasaki]

This is a review for OpenID Identity Assurance schema definition 1.0 draft.

1. Torsten’s affiliation in the “Authors” section should be changed from yes.com to his current organization.
2. The string “draft” should be removed from the document title.
3. The display name of the link to the “W3C Verifiable Credentials Data Model” document should be changed from “VerifiableCredentials” to a better one. For example, to “W3C VCDM”.
4. It may be better to change “data-minimisation” to “data-minimization” if we wish to stick to American English.
5. There is a redundant right square bracket at the end of the paragraph in the “Introduction” section.
6. The “Warning” section should be removed from the final version.
7. The term “OpenID Connect provider” in “3.2. claims provider” is uncommon. It should be “OpenID provider”.
8. The term “an OpenID Connect relying party” in “3.6. identity assurance” can be expressed simply as “a relying party”.
9. “Usable” is much more common, especially in American English, than “useable”. (in the “Requirements” section)
10. The first letter of “Section 5.2 of the OpenID Connect specification” in the second last paragraph in “5.3. claims element” is capitalized. However, other occurrences before it use a small letter. For example, “section 5.1 of the OpenID Connect specification” in the second paragraph in “5.3. claims element”; Not “Section” but “section”. All the occurrences should be consistent.
11. “C” in “no Claims data” in the last paragraph of “5.3. claims element” has no reason to be capitalized.
12. “whereas an claims provider” → “whereas a claims provider” (the same typo appears twice in the 4th paragraph in “5.4.2. Element structure”)
13. A colon between “evidence element” and “this element” should be replaced with a semicolon. (in the description for assurance_process in “5.4.2. Element structure”)
14. “the evidence fulfils” → “the evidence fulfills”, if we stick to American English.
15. “any meta data” → “any metadata” (in the description for evidence_metadata)
16. “a Government organization” → “a government organization” (in the description for electronic_record)
17. “the Claim(s) presented” → “the claim(s) presented” (in the description for vouch) (“claims” is not capitalized so far.)
18. electronic_record → electronic_record (fixed width font), in 5.4.4.2 / source / name.
19. “a electronic_signature evidence sub-element” → “an electronic_signature evidence sub-element” (in the first paragraph of “5.4.4.4. Evidence type electronic_signature")
20. Append “and” at the end of the third item of the list of artifacts in “5.4.5. Attachments”.
21. “the claims Recipient” → “the claims recipient” (in the second paragraph of “5.4.5. Attachments”)
22. The scheme of the link to ISO 8601 in the “Normative References” section should be changed from http to https.
23. The scheme of the link to the OIDC Core spec in the “Normative References” section should be changed from http to https.
24. The scheme of the link to the OID4IDA Attachments spec in the “Informative References” section should be changed from http to https.
25. The scheme of the link to the OpenID4IDAClaims spec in the “Informative References” section should be changed from http to https.
26. Torsten’s affiliation in the “Author’s Addresses” should be changed from yes.com to his current organization.

‌

‌

[Mark Haine]

This is a review for OpenID Identity Assurance schema definition 1.0 draft.

1. Torsten’s affiliation in the “Authors” section should be changed from yes.com to his current organization. -
2. The string “draft” should be removed from the document title. - not until it is approved by foundation wide vote
3. The display name of the link to the “W3C Verifiable Credentials Data Model” document should be changed from “VerifiableCredentials” to a better one. For example, to “W3C VCDM”.
4. It may be better to change “data-minimisation” to “data-minimization” if we wish to stick to American English.
5. There is a redundant right square bracket at the end of the paragraph in the “Introduction” section.
6. The “Warning” section should be removed from the final version. not until it is approved by foundation wide vote
7. The term “OpenID Connect provider” in “3.2. claims provider” is uncommon. It should be “OpenID provider”.
8. The term “an OpenID Connect relying party” in “3.6. identity assurance” can be expressed simply as “a relying party”.
9. “Usable” is much more common, especially in American English, than “useable”. (in the “Requirements” section)
10. The first letter of “Section 5.2 of the OpenID Connect specification” in the second last paragraph in “5.3. claims element” is capitalized. However, other occurrences before it use a small letter. For example, “section 5.1 of the OpenID Connect specification” in the second paragraph in “5.3. claims element”; Not “Section” but “section”. All the occurrences should be consistent.
11. “C” in “no Claims data” in the last paragraph of “5.3. claims element” has no reason to be capitalized.
12. “whereas an claims provider” → “whereas a claims provider” (the same typo appears twice in the 4th paragraph in “5.4.2. Element structure”) - search for “an claims” to find both
13. A colon between “evidence element” and “this element” should be replaced with a semicolon. (in the description for assurance_process in “5.4.2. Element structure”) That’s a comma not a colon - not saying it shouldn’t change
14. “the evidence fulfils” → “the evidence fulfills”, if we stick to American English.
15. “any meta data” → “any metadata” (in the description for evidence_metadata)
16. “a Government organization” → “a government organization” (in the description for electronic_record)
17. “the Claim(s) presented” → “the claim(s) presented” (in the description for vouch) (“claims” is not capitalized so far.)
18. electronic_record → electronic_record (fixed width font), in 5.4.4.2 / source / name.
19. “a electronic_signature evidence sub-element” → “an electronic_signature evidence sub-element” (in the first paragraph of “5.4.4.4. Evidence type electronic_signature")
20. Append “and” at the end of the third item of the list of artifacts in “5.4.5. Attachments”. - but really marginal need for this IMHO
21. “the claims Recipient” → “the claims recipient” (in the second paragraph of “5.4.5. Attachments”)
22. The scheme of the link to ISO 8601 in the “Normative References” section should be changed from http to https.
23. The scheme of the link to the OIDC Core spec in the “Normative References” section should be changed from http to https.
24. The scheme of the link to the OID4IDA Attachments spec in the “Informative References” section should be changed from http to https.
25. The scheme of the link to the OpenID4IDAClaims spec in the “Informative References” section should be changed from http to https.
26. Torsten’s affiliation in the “Author’s Addresses” should be changed from yes.com to his current organization.

‌

I would add that…

reference anchor="OpenID4IDA"

is present in ythe markdown but not used - this section should be deleted from the backmatter

‌

[Hodari McClain]

follow up to 18. - should ‘credit reference agency’ be ‘credit reporting agency’ in evidence element section?

‌

[Takahiko Kawasaki]

See also: https://bitbucket.org/openid/ekyc-ida/issues/1404/ida-claims-registration-typos#comment-66621150

All occurrences of ”a claims provider” in “OpenID Identity Assurance schema definition 1.0” should be replaced with “a claim provider”.

[Mark Haine]

Previous comment: “follow up to 18. - should ‘credit reference agency’ be ‘credit reporting agency’ in evidence element section?“

They are called different things in different countries - This is the UK name - I don’t think it is close to normative or very likely to cause any real confusion so I suggest we leave it as is.

[Mark Haine]

I think a separate issue and PR to address Taka’s observation about “claims provider” pluralization - I have raised issue #1406

[Hodari McClain]

PR#207 merged

[Hodari McClain]

PR#207 merged