First version of the 2.1 version of the vocabulary.

[iherman]

This PR is to fix #1651, but it is more than that: based on the discussion in #1651 (comment) it proposes a new folder in the repository with the new, 2.1 version of the vocabulary.

Apart from the issues in #1651, the new version includes:

• Update of all definition URLs to 2.1 of VCDM.
• It adds a new URL for the corresponding context file. Note that the URL redirections are discussed in https://github.com/w3c/vc-wg/blob/main/vocabs/newvocabularies.md, and things should still be finalized
• It replaces the old, drawio+svg diagram with a mermaid one. (With the future evolution, basically extension of the vocabulary, the drawio approach does not scale.) Caveat: I am new to mermaid, someone may come with a much better diagram with other/better mermaid features. If possible, please do.

After the merge of this PR, we should also update the github actions. The goal is that the generated html/turtle/json-ld files would not be part of the repository; they would be generated on the fly for the github pages by a relevant action.

Note: this PR does not touch the JSON-LD context file. That is maintained somewhere else...

[iherman]

For reviewers:

The folder contains a number of files that are generated, not curated by hand. What is subject to review:

1. template.html is the respec formatted html file which is used to generate the vocabulary.html file. Very little changed between version 2.0 and this one.

2. vocabulary.mmd is a mermaid file depicting the core vocabulary. This file is 100% new, replacing a draw.io file in version 2.0

3. vocabulary.yml is the core vocabulary definition. Apart from some comments, 95% of the changes is the addition of external terms. I have added some comments on where they are in the file, and needs review to see if something has been mistyped.

   Technically, what really changed is domain of the validFrom and validUntil must be changed in the vocabulary #1651. Everything else is a matter of an updated tooling.

All the other files are generated. Only one of those need real review, exceptionally, namely: vocabulary.context.jsonld. The review is to compare it with the current, official JSON-LD context, namely https://www.w3.org/ns/credentials/v2. That is tedious, I know...

The references to the 'old' versions are:

• https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/blob/main/vocab/credentials/v2/template.html
• https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/blob/main/vocab/credentials/v2/vocabulary.yml

Note: in future, there will be a GitHub setup whereby the generated files will not stay in the repository, but will be generated via a GH action.

[iherman]

This was discussed during the vcwg meeting on 30 September 2026.

View the transcript

w3c/vc-data-model#1652

brent: The other pull request is from Ivan, this is the first version of the 2.1 version of the vocabulary.

ivan: The title makes the PR clear - I started to review the vocab changes due to validFrom and validUntil, I took the opportunity to rework the vocabulary.
… What I did last is use a tool to regenerate the JSON-LD context file, the goal being that in the future, instead of having humans produce JSON-LD contexts, automated tooling can do it.

<TallTed> goodness... +3616 lines across 7 files!

brent: One of the difficulties in review this is that there are new files. Would it be possible to generate some sort of diff?

ivan: I can do that, but the diffs are so big, all the terms in the JSON-LD Context that are not in the vocabulary had to be added to the vocabulary to make the tool work.
… One thing to review is the YAML file. Everything else is generated - review the YAML and the context file.

brent: Please comment in the PR providing pointers to what should be reviewed vs what is generated.
… Even just a statement listing changes would be useful.
… Process and intent.
… This PR is in need of review - please review it!
… Those are the PRs. We still have a bit of time to look at issues.

manu: I have a general question about the threat model for VCDM. We don't have an issue for this. I feel weird being the only person listed on that document - I suggest we put all of the authors of the VCDM on it, since it inherited the security and privacy considerations of the document.

brent: I think this makes sense - do others have thoughts?

<Antony> makes sense !

<Elaine> Didn’t we do a brainstorm. Maybe people involved in that

phila: Yes, it is a group effort, unless there is an objection, please add the other names.

<TallTed> suggested issue sort order -- https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues?q=is%3Aissue+state%3Aopen+sort%3Aupdated-asc

wes-smith: If we migrate the authors over should they be added as authors to the threat model, not editors.

manu: +1

<brent> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues

brent: There are some open issues for VCDM.
… We are going to look at #1649 for what time we have.
… Instead let's start with #1583.

---

[TallTed]

Sentence case? or Title case?

I think we should pick one, and make it consistent throughout.

[iherman]

I usually prefer sentence case. I have handled this one in e2b3c3b

[TallTed]

Some specific changes, some general comments.

Another general comment: A number of stanzas lack label:. I've suggested some specifics; it seems likely that all stanzas should get them added.

[iherman]

Some specific changes, some general comments.

Another general comment: A number of stanzas lack label:. I've suggested some specifics; it seems likely that all stanzas should get them added.

Thanks @TallTed , much appreciated. I merged/handled your comments

[iherman]

@TallTed, I have added all the labels in 4d085d0