Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Isolating the Data Model from the Interfaces #35

Closed
TelegramSam opened this issue Oct 8, 2020 · 3 comments
Closed

Isolating the Data Model from the Interfaces #35

TelegramSam opened this issue Oct 8, 2020 · 3 comments

Comments

@TelegramSam
Copy link

In discussion on the Aries WG B Call 20201008, several opinions were voiced about the separation of concerns between use of the data model as a backup/restore/portability mechanism and the abstract interfaces present in the same spec. Some of the opinions offered included that the spec as an interoperability effort should not have concerns with the internal functions of the software using the data model, and that those interfaces were not an external integration point anyway.

Two options were discussed to rectify the problem: Splitting the interface section into a separate spec, or include the interfaces as commentary in a non-normative assumptions manner.

Is there support for isolating the data model from the interface section?

@kimdhamilton
Copy link
Collaborator

From a layering perspective, separating them makes a lot of sense. IMO the only advantage to having them combined at this stage is for convenience (for those of us iterating on both), but they could be split up at any time, and they'd most likely need to be split up before progressing to standards track.

Switching the interface to non-normative / commentary is an interesting idea that could address the convenience factor -- if that's really a concern.

So strong support on isolating. No strong preference on how that's accomplished -- splitting vs commentary -- will go with popular opinion on that.

@OR13
Copy link
Collaborator

OR13 commented Nov 30, 2020

This keeps coming up. IMO splitting the spec is not necessary especially if the conformance section establishes conformance can be to the data model and /or the interfaces... it amounts to the same thing.

I am hesitant to split a spec we are already seeing little contribution too, but I am in favor of trying to adapt thee interfaces section to be more general / supportive of Aries controller interfaces.

@OR13
Copy link
Collaborator

OR13 commented Feb 1, 2021

I am going to close this issue, I've gotten a lot of feedback that folks like the interfaces, and splitting the spec is extra work for the editors.... We can decide to split the sections up if and when this spec graduates from the ccg.

@OR13 OR13 closed this as completed Feb 1, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants