Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

  • Collaboration between Stakeholders: Ensuring that organisations such as governments, R&E institutions, and private companies can coordinate their efforts. For example, a government-issued digital ID should be usable by an R&E service (verifier).
  • Shared Processes: Establishing common protocols processes for user binding, identity issuance, verification, and revocation across organisations. For instance, standardising how a university issues a digital diploma that can be verified by an employer’s identity system.

...

  • Common Data Models: Using standardised schemas for identity attributesstandardised attributes, such as those defined by the W3C Verifiable Credentials Data Model, OpenID4VC etc, to ensure a “date of birth” or a "person identifier" field is interpreted the same way across systems.
  • Ontology Alignment: Agreeing on the meaning of terms, such as what constitutes a “verified identity” or a “trusted issuer,” to avoid miscommunication.
  • Interoperable Formats: Supporting formats like JSON-LD for credentials to ensure data can be read and processed by different identity wallets.
  • Schemas for understanding credentials: E.g. ELM, OpenBadge, EMREX, ELMO, but also different isolated schemas at the national level. Need to interoperate with existing schemata
  • Profiles:

...

    • based on ELM)

End-to-end Interoperability

Technical interoperability ensures that the underlying technologies of identity wallets and distributed identity systems can work together. This can be broken down into several subcategories (see also Educational interoperability by SURF):

Users & Services

  • Ensuring that identity wallets provide a consistent user experience across different platforms (e.g., mobile apps, web interfaces).
  • Supporting seamless interaction between users and services, such as using a single identity wallet to log into both a government portal and an R&E service

...