14:48:44 RRSAgent has joined #vcwg 14:48:44 logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/06/27-vcwg-irc 14:49:00 Meeting: W3C Verifiable Claims Working Group 14:49:15 Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2017Jun/0015.html 14:49:27 Chair: DanB, MattS, RichardV 14:49:39 rrsagent, draft minutes 14:49:39 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/06/27-vcwg-minutes.html burn 14:49:44 rrsagent, make logs public 14:53:55 Present+ DanBurnett 14:54:01 JohnTib has joined #vcwg 14:54:02 Present+ JohnTibbetts 14:54:57 Present+ ColleenKennedy 14:55:20 Colleen has joined #vcwg 14:55:32 present+ colleen_kennedy 14:55:56 zakim, who's on the phone? 14:55:56 Present: DanBurnett, JohnTibbetts, ColleenKennedy, colleen_kennedy 14:56:09 present- colleen_kennedy 14:56:40 I see thank you 14:57:17 s/I see thank you// 14:58:36 nage has joined #vcwg 14:59:42 yes, I should be able to scribe 14:59:59 s/yes, I should be able to scribe// 15:00:08 scribenick: nage 15:00:12 gkellogg has joined #vcwg 15:00:15 Present+ ChrisWebber 15:00:21 present+ ChrisWebber 15:01:00 present+ NathanGeorge 15:01:04 stonematt has joined #vcwg 15:01:10 present+ MattStone 15:01:17 Present+ ManuSporny 15:01:18 present+ Ted_Thibodeau 15:01:22 present+ DaveLongley 15:02:23 present+ 15:02:24 present+ AdamMigus 15:02:50 gkellogg has joined #vcwg 15:03:02 Topic: Agenda review, Introductions and Reintroductions 15:03:10 Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2017Jun/0015.html 15:03:15 present+ Gregg_Kellogg 15:03:35 burn: any comments corrections or adjustments to the agenda? 15:03:43 ...: is there anyone new on the call? 15:03:54 zakim, pick a victim 15:03:54 Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose JohnTibbetts 15:03:59 Charles_Engelke has joined #vcwg 15:04:06 Varn has joined #vcwg 15:04:10 ...: nope. Reintroductions, John havev you reintroduced yourself yet? 15:04:29 JohnTib: I'm here representing Vital Source, they are in the education digital assets space 15:04:50 ...: my interest in this is from some early work we were doing representing records of performance 15:05:14 present+ RichardVarn 15:05:19 ... most of my interest is in how do we render such things, and the particular topics I'm interested in are best practices regarding verifiable claims. 15:05:25 amigus has joined #vcwg 15:05:28 zakim, who is here? 15:05:30 Present: DanBurnett, JohnTibbetts, ColleenKennedy, ChrisWebber, NathanGeorge, MattStone, ManuSporny, Ted_Thibodeau, DaveLongley, stonematt, AdamMigus, Gregg_Kellogg, RichardVarn 15:05:30 On IRC I see amigus, Varn, Charles_Engelke, gkellogg, stonematt, nage, Colleen, JohnTib, RRSAgent, Zakim, burn, TallTed, liam, bigbluehat, ChristopherA, cwebber2, dlehn, manu, 15:05:30 ... robert, dlongley 15:05:40 present- stonematt 15:05:43 ... transcripts can be quite large and there is a lot of derivitave data, that in a relational sense would be denormalized out of a data structure 15:06:00 ... do you put in both the course name and the description, since the VC asserts the correctness of the record? 15:06:20 dezell has joined #vcwg 15:06:24 ... we've worked closely with the national association of registrars on this, and how these questions might be answered 15:06:29 present+ DavidEzell 15:06:48 ... what types of data should go in, should it be minimal or should it include data that could be mutable 15:06:51 ... so that is me 15:06:56 Topic: WG Face to Face meeting @ TPAC (see https://www.w3.org/2017/11/TPAC/Overview.html#details) 15:07:02 burn: thank you. Next topic is the F2F meeting 15:07:18 burn: just a reminder please do register and get your hotel rooms if you can 15:07:43 ... some additional rooms may have opened up, Make your reservations soon. Hotel rooms seem to be quite expensive that week. 15:08:01 ... any questions about the face to face meeting at this point (we will begin discussing the agenda as we get closer) 15:08:06 Topic: Discuss FPWD for Data Model doc--what issues are blocking finalizing the FPWD 15:08:17 Topic: PR 56: Report from Manu on terminology list and poll 15:08:25 q+ to report back on where we are. 15:08:34 q? 15:08:52 burn: Manu, please speak first to the status of this, and the next topic will be opportunities for anyone to speak up with insights or conclusions that they have been able to draw so far 15:08:58 ack manu 15:08:58 manu, you wanted to report back on where we are. 15:08:58 ack manu 15:09:04 q? 15:09:15 Terminology Playground Text: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NWdpFxbERXZodvbJP_GgGZhkGI54zWmqTuFz-CR2hps/edit 15:09:17 manu: we have three things that we're working with. A terminology playground text 15:09:43 ... where we have been collecting options that people have been throwing out, to make sure we've gathered all the suggestions. 15:09:44 present+ 15:09:49 Terminology Playground: https://vcwg-terminology-playground.firebaseapp.com/ 15:10:12 ... we also have a terminilogy playground that allows people to select different terms for each sentence and see how they fit in with the types of statements that are being made 15:10:17 ... then we have a poll that is setup 15:10:22 JoeAndrieu has joined #vcwg 15:10:25 Terminology Poll: https://www.opavote.com/en/vote/5724357032673280?p=1 15:10:36 ... which is a preview of the poll 15:11:08 ... we hope to use these tools to come up with a decision about the terminology and collect as much data as possible about preferences and use that to make a final decision about what language goes into the document 15:11:35 ... I think we've collected as much data as we can at this point. We likely need to cull the list for option C. 15:11:45 q+ 15:11:54 ... when there are more than 5 of 6 selections the preference voting starts to be less effective 15:12:03 q? 15:12:09 ack stonematt 15:12:11 ... I have a proposal on how we can do that, which we can get to when we start culling the list 15:12:38 stonematt: Is it the expectation and is it required that the full list of options needs to be prioritized? 15:13:15 manu: because of the model it is important that all the items are included. If people stop caring after option 10 than the tiebreaking can lead to the wrong outcome in the poll. 15:13:33 present+ JoeAndrieu 15:13:43 burn: The chairs proposal for where to go next is to ask if others have any insights or conclusions for the terminolgy discussion 15:14:01 ... what we are looking for is for anyone who is following the discussion can you point out things that you have learned from the discussion 15:14:26 q+ 15:14:32 ... if there is something you understand as a distinction that you didn't understand before, please point that out 15:14:36 ack TallTed 15:14:54 TallTed: this particular poll, I'm a little concerned that there isn't a way to have a negative vote for something. 15:15:07 q+ to note negative votes in IRV polling. 15:15:11 ack manu 15:15:11 manu, you wanted to note negative votes in IRV polling. 15:15:14 ... for example Claimant doesn't make sense at all, and I would like for it to be a non-choice 15:15:56 manu: for role C we'll go through an exercise here in a second that will cut off the bottom ones. Ted you'll effectively have an opportunity to do that here. In general in instant run off voting you don't have negative votes because you don't need them. 15:16:06 ... everything put at the bottom of the list generally stay there 15:16:36 TallTed: the playground as it stands does not update the paragraphs. 15:16:50 it doesn't work on chrome. it works on safari and firefox 15:16:55 ChristopherA: sometimes you have to hit the fields twice to get them to update after a second or two 15:17:13 present+ Christopher Allen 15:17:25 manu: it is listening to an onclick event without any frameworks, so different versions of different browsers behave differently 15:17:41 s/present+ Christopher Allen/present+ ChristophenAllen/ 15:17:45 q? 15:17:57 ?+ 15:17:57 burn: any other statements about realizations 15:18:01 q+ 15:18:02 q+ 15:18:05 for the poll, does one have to rank all the terms? can they be just left off? 15:18:07 q+ 15:18:16 present+ 15:18:17 ack nage 15:18:26 q+ 15:18:55 nage: The entity that we were calling the "Holder" or "Prover", they don't always have the cryptographic material that's used to sign the information, but they may hold the key - some of the terms that we've thrown around can cause problems around protocol implementations. 15:19:42 nage: That entity that's in the middle, may receive something, they may give something to someone else - so, we have to be careful with that middle term of the middle person - the thing receiving/presenting, they can be receiving AND presenting... unlike in traditional triangle model, every entity can play multiple roles at the same time. 15:19:59 ack ChristopherA 15:20:04 nage: So, we have to be careful about what sorts of terminology goes there - depending on the use case, the terminology for the middle person can be very different. 15:20:13 ChristopherA: I had some similar observations last week about things such as holder, like holder of the keys 15:20:17 ... which isn't really correct 15:20:43 ... my main thing here is an observation that in the playground, the last sentence may be problematic 15:20:53 ... I demonstrated how some changes to the last statement effectively mean the same thing 15:21:03 q+ to note that Christopher used Relying Party for the wrong actor, and that's why the statement didn't work. 15:21:12 q- 15:21:14 ... the "holder" (not sure which word to use) is essentially the subject of the claim 15:21:16 q+ to note that Christopher used Relying Party for the wrong role, and that's why the statement didn't work. 15:21:24 ... or perhaps is authorized or allowed to represent the subject of the claim 15:21:35 q+ 15:21:36 ... basically ends up meaning the same thing as that last sentence 15:21:52 ... I see why from a self-soverign point of view, but not sure how it applys to the data model 15:22:15 ... I had Relying Party as a term in my mind for the party that is relying on the claim (think of the over 21 example) 15:22:33 ... the bartender role, but that entity is not the inspector 15:23:13 ack dlongley 15:23:21 burn: please keep this time to observations that were useful to you that might be useful to others as well 15:23:56 dlongley: for role C which is essentially been called holder, folks are chosing terms for thier most common use cases, but we haven't really spanned the term to the most common denominator 15:24:17 ... essentiaily party 1 can make a claim to party 2 that they can share with party 3 without involving party 1 15:24:28 ... where party 2 can move the place from one place from another 15:24:31 ack Varn 15:25:16 Varn: we are trying to solve our common problem by comming up with a term that is compound with role and task that is tricky to articulate 15:25:30 ... that person can be a broker or an agent or the subject that constitutes the top descriptor 15:25:44 ... you can be a self-submitter a broker or an agent or an entity 15:25:48 The main strength or feature of Verifiable Claims is that party A can make a claim that party B can share with party C, where: party C doesn't have to trust party B and party A doesn't have to know that party B shared the claim with party C. 15:26:07 ... once the person that recieves the claim they may not do all the work that is relevant to what we're talking about, they may sub out soe of the work 15:26:30 ack manu 15:26:30 manu, you wanted to note that Christopher used Relying Party for the wrong role, and that's why the statement didn't work. 15:26:30 The common denominator is that party B "moves" or "shares" the claim. That's it -- there are often other aspects integral to party B, but those are use case specific. 15:26:37 ... I think we'll get to the point where we have reasonable descriptors to solve the problem, but adding some sub roles might help us simplify this discussion 15:27:00 manu: I wanted to do a quick note where ChristopherA mentioned about Relying Party around role C or role D 15:27:03 zakim, who's on the phone? 15:27:03 Present: DanBurnett, JohnTibbetts, ColleenKennedy, ChrisWebber, NathanGeorge, MattStone, ManuSporny, Ted_Thibodeau, DaveLongley, AdamMigus, Gregg_Kellogg, RichardVarn, DavidEzell, 15:27:06 ... dezell, JoeAndrieu, Christopher, Allen, liam 15:27:21 ... if you use it for role C it doesn't work, but I think that isn't what others were suggesting, I think they wanted to add Relying Party to role D 15:27:31 present+ CharlesEngelke 15:27:49 present- Christopher 15:27:50 ... the confusion around the previous terms remains the same. Whenever we have this discussion we tend to rehash things 15:27:53 present- Allen 15:28:01 present+ ChristopherAllen 15:28:25 ... in doing so, we discover new things. In this case revealing Subject as a role makes the things that others have been observing has simplified what others have been talking about for a while. 15:28:33 present+ Joe_Andrieu 15:28:41 q? 15:28:45 ... if we can get to some common denominator first principles as a foundation, it will help with this role C dillema 15:28:57 ... this breakdown on role C is really dependent on the protocol 15:29:16 ... and adding subject has made it easier to talk about this common denominator 15:29:43 ... we have some folks talking about the common denominator, and other talking about specific use cases, but we have to do both at once 15:30:01 ... the first discussion is about how to boil the ecosystem down to atomic parts 15:30:08 Christopher: the "bar tender" or "car dealership" is Role D, so that's why people think relying party is Role D. 15:30:10 ack TallTed 15:30:11 "Inspector" may be what is confusing there as its current name. 15:30:11 ... the second is, in particular scenarios do the terms make sense 15:30:17 +1 for the need to make a terms decision that is based on the common denominator across all use cases. 15:30:51 TallTed: the more I've been reading on this, the more I'm convinced that the there has been a lot of condensation about multiple actors into a single role 15:31:07 ... I can make a claim about myself, but it isn't useful to say that these roles are all one. 15:31:38 ... there are multiple roles being filled by the same person, and we don't want to cram too many of them into one single term in all these cases 15:32:21 ... when there are more than one role active, we don't necessarily need to boil it down to one term 15:33:03 and there's a danger with selecting too many Roles -- where then it becomes unclear which Role is which; I do think we have found the main purpose for this Role, which is moving a claim from the party that made the claim to the party that relies upon it. 15:33:08 manu: usually we need to get things down to 5 or 6 selections, so what we're going to try to do is get over the rush of new comments that came in at the very end 15:33:22 ... for example Signatory, Conveyor and Transmitter 15:33:34 ... these are very new additions, and we need to see if folks want them on the poll 15:33:38 q+ 15:33:51 ... the other thing we need to do is cull role C down 15:34:06 ... I will copy and paste something into the channel, for example for role C 15:34:16 ... please vote for the 6 items that you definitely want to see on the poll 15:34:28 ... everyone should do that, and we won't try to tabulate those results on the call 15:34:56 ... shortly after the call I'll sum them up and everything above the water mark (6 items) will go on the poll and everything else will be dropped 15:35:11 ... on the other shorter lists we'll simply be looking for any objections to the new terms 15:35:20 ... again the purpose is to cull the list not to argue for what you want 15:35:32 ... simple up/down vote on each of these items 15:35:55 ... if the chairs are okay with it will go through each. Please type out your response on IRC so we have a record of everyone's response 15:36:03 ... chairs is that clear enough? 15:36:08 ack TallTed 15:36:10 burn: let's go to the queue 15:36:30 TallTed: this seems like putting the cart before the horse as many of these terms are not very clearly defined 15:36:37 ... the text on that playground demonstrates that 15:36:37 do we have enough members present to do voting on irc? 15:36:55 manu: here is a counter argument: we have been having this discussion for two years now 15:36:59 varn, yes. we have one of the fullest meetings ever 15:37:10 ... and we're not making a final decision, but trying to get a draft document out 15:37:23 +q 15:37:34 ... what I've seen in the discussion is that folks have a good grasp on what these roles do and the debate is about what to merge or split apart 15:37:43 ... and these terms haven't been modified much 15:38:00 ... I agree with you Ted that there are some things that aren't very well defined, but things seem to be functionally defined 15:38:14 TallTed: I've tried to pictorally represent this and have not been able to do so 15:38:33 manu: we do have a diagram that lays this out, I'm not sure if someone can find it. It was used to define the group. 15:38:45 ... we have one as well that breaks it into more atomic components 15:39:05 TallTed: what is here right now is simply incomprehensible 15:39:12 ... I can make heads or tails going all the way through 15:39:22 ack amigus 15:39:25 can sub-roles be added to the model later if determined to be useful? 15:39:27 burn: we have someone else on the queue, please put yourself on the queue to add comments 15:39:46 q? 15:39:53 amigus: just to push back on the current conversation, we're picking these terms based on their definability 15:40:01 q+ 15:40:05 ... so we can evaluate how well we can define the terms 15:40:11 ack cwebber2 15:40:17 q+ to ask for a concrete proposal. 15:40:30 cwebber: I've been mostly quiet becuase some folks seem more well versed in these terms. 15:40:34 TallTed: http://w3c.github.io/webpayments-ig/VCTF/architecture/ 15:40:34 if we're talking about placeholders -- RoleA, RoleB, RoleC, or Alice, Bob, Charlie, would be better 15:40:37 ack cwebber 15:40:43 .. we've trying to get good working terms, and I find that argument to be a strong one 15:40:53 q+ 15:40:56 ... there is a real risk of not moving forward if we try to hit perfection at this point 15:41:02 Diagram that I've always liked: Figure 2 of http://w3c.github.io/webpayments-ig/VCTF/architecture/detailed/ 15:41:03 specifically: http://w3c.github.io/webpayments-ig/VCTF/architecture/architecture.svg 15:41:07 ack manu 15:41:07 manu, you wanted to ask for a concrete proposal. 15:41:08 ... language is so squishy that it is possible to get stuck in these things forevere 15:41:12 q+ 15:41:19 s/forevere/forever 15:41:25 q+ 15:41:50 manu: I'm congnizant that Ted is bringing up a good point that he has a lot of experience in standards and it isn't making sense, meaning there is more work to do here 15:42:19 ... as cwebber said, we're not after perfection, just trying to get to working terms for the draft. 15:42:44 ... if there is a better proposal out there, please make that proposal. But also don't make that suggestion off the top of your head. 15:42:59 ack burn 15:43:05 ...we wan't this to end with some finality so that we can move on to the more techincal work 15:43:19 burn: these terminology discussions can go on forever 15:43:26 http://w3c.github.io/webpayments-ig/VCTF/architecture/#basic-architecture shows that there are at least *three* roles under the "Holder" label 15:43:31 ... and right now I don't care about what terms we use because that isn't the most important 15:43:45 ... what is important is that the concepts, meaning the roles that are important are represented there 15:43:48 I'm more concerned about the list of phrases. That is why I think the terms are so hard. 15:43:48 q+ 15:44:02 ... the other reason it is important is that there is a group mindshare that is very important 15:44:10 ... and we need to be able to communicate it to new folks in the groups 15:44:25 ack ChristopherA 15:44:29 q+ to note that we're not going to have enough time if we keep going. 15:44:47 ChristopherA: I have some flexibility for the words, and as a long time standards person I've experienced this before 15:45:00 ... but my feeling is that we're still missing some steps and that is killing us 15:45:15 ... perhaps a little time splitting up where the confusions are will help 15:45:33 ... like someone is "given this data object", but then there are some steps that might need to be divided 15:45:44 ... and that might help clarify some things 15:46:02 ... I'm also open to deferring that discussion to later, but there seems to be a lot of energy on this right now 15:46:16 q? 15:46:20 ack Varn 15:46:27 ... we don't want to have to be bike shedding on this the next time as well 15:46:45 +1 on getting the list more reasonably sized 15:46:46 Varn: remember we had a resolution process to boil this down to a reasonable length list 15:47:01 ... then once the poll results are in, we can add a comment to it that it is a place holder that needs more work 15:47:09 Christopher, we can always put "Role1", "Role2", etc. in the draft. Let's not bikeshed, but let's get the concepts right. 15:47:10 \ \\\\\\ 15:47:11 ... and if there is real strong disagreement we can pull it out for now 15:47:13 ]\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ 15:47:27 ... also it is important to remmeber that there are new roles to add that could help solve some of these problems 15:47:29 yep, sorry! 15:47:32 q? 15:47:43 ... there are tasks that they have to do that can be addressed as we move forward 15:47:52 ... once we get to a reasonable list of things to vote on 15:47:53 lol, well, maybe a little 15:48:09 ... lets see how the poll comes out and see if we are happy with the results and then evaluate what to do next 15:48:09 ack JoeAndrieu 15:48:28 Joe: process wise thanks to the chairs for the time to have this conversation 15:48:40 +1 thank you JoeAndrieu 15:48:44 ... we've really needed to have this conversation and I feel like we have had the conversation 15:48:48 +1 JoeAndrieu 15:48:50 +1 15:48:53 ... I think we should take a vote and move through this process 15:49:12 ... one additional bit about realizataions to mention is that we are talking about issuing and verifying and recieving claims 15:49:12 +1 on proceeding to the vote 15:49:26 ... but the terms are credentials claims and profiles and we haven't really moved through that 15:49:39 q? 15:49:43 ... we don't really have time to deal with that now, but we do have an issue to do that later 15:49:46 ack manu 15:49:46 manu, you wanted to note that we're not going to have enough time if we keep going. 15:49:57 +1 also on proceed to vote 15:49:57 +1 on doing the vote 15:50:13 burn: we acknowledge that Ted has concerns about this process step 15:50:16 https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/46 Add section/language about presentation of claims 15:50:39 ... because the time on the call is almost up and there is no call next week, we'd like to get the poll done and at our next call we will address those concerns 15:50:52 ROLE_B: Issuer, Authority, Author, Signatory 15:50:57 manu: I will copy the terms for role B, the only one we don't know if there is support for is Signatory 15:51:24 +1 15:51:25 +1 Signatory 15:51:29 ... If you support Signatory please put +1 in the channel 15:51:35 Also doing the poll because we may gain useful information even if we don't take the results of the poll as gospel 15:51:48 Role B: -1 on signatory 15:51:48 -1 15:52:08 manu: we have two minus ones and it is split, when it is split we typically put it on the poll 15:52:12 My objection is that is a cryptographric confusion 15:52:12 +1 to manu's resolution 15:52:27 ROLE_D: Inspector, Evaluator, Verifier, Consumer, Guard, Relying Party 15:52:29 -1 on signatory for the cryptographic confusion Christopher mentions 15:52:45 manu: on Role D we have enough support for Inspector Evaluator Verifier and Relying Party 15:52:51 s/Guard/Guardian? 15:52:53 .. we haven't heard on consumer or guard 15:53:15 -1 consumer; -1 guard 15:53:18 ... if you want them on the poll please do a +1 15:53:35 +1 Consumer, +1 Relying Party 15:53:40 +1 Relying Party 15:53:43 -1 consumer 15:53:44 +1 Relying Party +1 Consumer 15:53:46 -1 gard, -1 consumer, very confused relying party as D 15:53:49 -1 Relying Party 15:53:49 -1 guard 15:53:54 -1 guart 15:54:03 -1 Guard 15:54:08 +1 relying party +1 consumer -1 guard 15:54:09 -1 Guard 15:54:10 -1 consumer 15:54:11 manu: I have pasted ROLE_D, please +1 and -1 15:54:14 -1 to relying party as D 15:54:34 +1 Consumer 15:54:34 it's a hybrid Role .... specific labels don't comprise all the roles served 15:54:35 +1 Relying Party, 0 consumer, 0 guard 15:54:47 concern about RP because I believe it's responsibilities differ from OIDC...but not enough to -1 15:54:54 manu: I will have to go through and tally everything up unless the chairs want to make a call here 15:55:38 manu: consumer stays on the poll, and guard is off of the poll 15:55:44 ... relying party stays on the poll 15:55:58 ... any objections to this? 15:56:08 +1 to final list 15:56:10 ChristopherA, I'm with dlongley. Role D is the bartender. This role is not just the cryptographic verification, but the party who will apply the statement once verified 15:56:11 ... (if you disagree with the reading of the votes on IRC) 15:56:11 propose: ROLE_D: Inspector, Evaluator, Verifier, Consumer, Relying Party 15:56:20 manu: role C we will do differently 15:56:43 ... We're going through the same exercise specifically for the new terms from the last 24 hours 15:56:46 ROLE_C: Do we want to add: Conveyor, Transmitter, Asserter 15:56:47 ... I'm going to put three choices in here 15:56:55 +1 asserter 15:57:02 Joe & Longly — then to make that work that make it high on my list to rewrite the phrases in the playground. 15:57:11 +1 Conveyer 15:57:13 -1 conveyer 15:57:14 -1 Conveyor -1 Transmitter 15:57:25 +1 conveyor 15:57:25 +1 Asserter, 0 Conveyor, 0 Transmitter 15:57:26 -1 conveyor -1 transmistter 15:57:27 -1 transmitter 15:57:28 -1 conveyor, -1 transmitter 15:57:34 -1 transmitter 15:57:37 -1 on Conveyor -1 Transmitter 15:57:38 -1 Conveyor -1 transmitter 15:57:39 worried about asserter but ok 15:57:44 manu: transmitter is being removed 15:57:52 -1 conveyer 15:57:59 -1 Conveyer 15:58:00 -1 transmitter 15:58:00 -1 Asserter 15:58:04 ... conveyor is 2 votes in favor 7 votes against 15:58:06 -1 asserter 15:58:13 ... conveyor and transmitter are being removed 15:58:24 -1/2 for asserter 15:58:27 ;-) 15:58:28 -1 Asserter 15:58:45 +1 asserter 15:59:01 manu: asserter is staying because it is split, does anyone object? 15:59:09 (I have to run to host other meeting.) 15:59:33 manu: good. Now here is the final thing to collect. Here are all the choices for Role C, with the two removed already removed 15:59:46 ... only copy and paste the l ilst of items you'd like to see on the poll, you get 6 votes 15:59:59 ROLE_C: Holder, Presenter, Receiver, Claimant, Subject, Prover, Guardian, Mediator, Subject(‘s) Agent, Owner, Sharer, Recipient, Asserter 16:00:01 ... only pick the six items that you would like to see on the poll, do "role C: " 16:00:12 RoleC is *major* hybrid. 16:00:31 ROLE C: Holder, Presenter, Receiver, Asserter, Claimant 16:00:33 Role C: Holder, Presenter, Claimant, Prover, Subject(‘s) Agent, Recipient 16:00:36 ROLE_C: Holder, Presenter, Receiver, Sharer, Recipient, Asserter 16:00:37 bye! 16:00:52 ROLE_C: Holder, Claimant, Prover, Subject(‘s) Agent 16:00:54 +1 Holder, Presenter, Claimant, Guardian, Subject(‘s) Agent, Asserter 16:00:59 ROLE_C: Holder, Presenter, Subject, Subject's Agent, Mediator, Sharer 16:00:59 Holder, Presenter, Mediator, Subject(‘s) Agent, , Sharer, , Asserter 16:01:16 Role_C: Holder, Presenter, Receiver, Mediator, Asserter, Sharer 16:01:17 ROLE_C: Holder, Presenter, Subject, Owner, Asserter 16:01:25 ROLE_C: Holder, Presenter, Subject, Prover, Guardian, Sharer 16:01:30 s/+1 Holder/ROLE_C Holder/ 16:01:43 Role C: Presenter, Claimant, Owner, Sharer, Asserter 16:02:03 Role C: Holder, Presenter, Claimant, Prover, Sharer, Asserter 16:02:09 manu: while folks are finishing up here, I can tally all the votes, and then pass a suggested resolution by the chairs, and if they agree to that we will send that out to the mailing list 16:02:19 ... if there are no strong objections by the end of the day today we can start the poll 16:02:20 +1 Holder, Presenter, Claimant, Mediator, (not necessarily Subject's!) Agent, Asserter 16:02:21 +1 on process 16:02:28 burn: that is fine 16:02:35 ... anything else manu? 16:02:37 +1 on process also 16:02:43 manu: that is all we need to run the poll thank you 16:02:52 +1 process. Thanks. 16:03:00 burn: if you've given your information here, feel free to go. 16:03:03 ... no call next week 16:03:08 ... we'll see you in two weeks 16:03:37 rrsagent, draft minutes 16:03:37 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/06/27-vcwg-minutes.html manu 16:04:26 zakim, who's on the phone? 16:04:26 Present: DanBurnett, JohnTibbetts, ColleenKennedy, ChrisWebber, NathanGeorge, MattStone, ManuSporny, Ted_Thibodeau, DaveLongley, AdamMigus, Gregg_Kellogg, RichardVarn, DavidEzell, 16:04:29 ... dezell, JoeAndrieu, liam, CharlesEngelke, ChristopherAllen, Joe_Andrieu 16:05:24 present+ LiamQuin 16:05:42 to reiterate my position on how these roles may be best simply defined: Someone makes a claim, someone relies upon it, and someone decides to shares it between those two parties. 16:05:54 rrsagent, draft minutes 16:05:54 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/06/27-vcwg-minutes.html burn 16:06:12 s/shares/share 16:07:34 present+ CharlesEngelke 16:07:45 present+ ChristopherAllen 16:07:52 present+ JoeAndrieu 16:07:59 rrsagent, draft minutes 16:07:59 I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/06/27-vcwg-minutes.html burn 16:16:28 rrsagent, bye 16:16:28 I see no action items