14:52:15 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #vcwg
14:52:15 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/08/01-vcwg-irc
14:52:25 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #vcwg
14:55:10 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #vcwg
14:56:25 <burn> present+ Dan_Burnett
14:56:40 <burn> Meeting: Verifiable Claims Working Group
14:56:54 <burn> Chair: Matt Stone, Richard Varn, Dan Burnett
14:58:55 <amigus> amigus has joined #vcwg
14:59:06 <manu> rrsagent, bye
14:59:29 <colleen> colleen has joined #vcwg
14:59:34 <manu> rrsagent, make logs public
14:59:41 <manu> rrsagent, make minutes
14:59:41 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/08/01-vcwg-minutes.html manu
15:00:12 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #vcwg
15:01:03 <colleen> present+ colleen_kennedy
15:01:12 <dlongley> present+ Dave_Longley
15:01:25 <manu> Present+ Manu_Sporny, Gregg_Kellogg, Dan_Burnett, Adam_Migus, Ted_Thiboudeaux
15:01:26 <stonematt> stonematt has joined #vcwg
15:01:33 <manu> Present+ Richard_Varn
15:01:37 <manu> Present+ Matt_Stone
15:01:39 <stonematt> present+
15:01:46 <manu> present- stonematt
15:01:59 <manu> rrsagent, make minutes
15:01:59 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/08/01-vcwg-minutes.html manu
15:02:01 <amigus> present+ Adam_Migus
15:02:02 <nage> nage has joined #vcwg
15:02:15 <nage> present+ Nathan_George
15:02:27 <ChristopherA> present+ ChristopherA
15:02:43 <cwebber2> present+ Chris_Webber
15:02:53 <ChristopherA> present+ Christopher_Allen
15:02:58 <TallTed> present+ Ted_Thibodeau
15:03:11 <manu> present- Ted_Thiboudeaux
15:03:50 <TallTed> TallTed has changed the topic to: VCWG - 2017-08-01 concall agenda https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2017Jul/0018.html
15:03:55 <manu> Present+ Kim_Hamilton_Duffy
15:04:04 <varn> varn has joined #vcwg
15:04:56 <manu> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2017Jul/0018.html
15:05:03 <JoeAndrieu> JoeAndrieu has joined #vcwg
15:05:05 <manu> rrsagent, make minutes
15:05:05 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/08/01-vcwg-minutes.html manu
15:05:09 <ChristopherA> I'm getting "host has not logged in" for webex
15:05:50 <manu> s/I'm getting "host has not logged in" for webex//
15:05:59 <varn> host is Liam and host is not needed for us to use it
15:06:09 <dezell> Present+ dezell
15:06:14 <manu> s/host is Liam and host is not needed for us to use it//
15:08:18 <stonematt> Scribe: dezell
15:08:34 <dezell> Topic: Agenda review, Introductions and Reintroductions
15:09:09 <dezell> Matt: there's a new structure in pull request #65.  We need to discuss.
15:09:38 <dezell> Matt: also, Manu suggested "milestones for deliverables."
15:10:12 <manu> +1 to the Agenda.
15:10:48 <dezell> Matt: we also need a new editor use cases.
15:11:30 <ChristopherA> There was also some discussion by Rieks with Manu that though difficult, had some points.
15:11:40 <DavidC> DavidC has joined #vcwg
15:11:50 <stonematt> q?
15:11:51 <dezell> Agenda approved.
15:12:07 <DavidC> yes, but my pw does not work for the webex
15:12:22 <dezell> Matt: anyone want to introduce themselves?
15:12:37 <DavidC> also I cannot login to the W3C pages
15:13:35 <dezell> Adam Migus: I'm an enterprise architect, 20 years in security.  Verifiable claims came to my attention at a conference where Manu presented.
15:13:47 <dezell> ...: I'm involved as a SpecOps standards champion.
15:14:01 <dezell> Topic: Data Model Spec discussion
15:14:10 <dezell> https://w3c.github.io/vc-data-model/
15:14:22 <liam> present+
15:14:23 <dlongley> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/65
15:15:04 <stonematt> pr preview: https://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/blob/msporny-verification/index.html
15:15:06 <dezell> Manu: The PR is multi-faceted.  There is clarifying restruction, came out of discussion of verification/revocation.
15:15:58 <dezell> ...: This version should be easier to read.  There are now sections of the document that talk about things we've been mulling over.
15:16:13 <dezell> ...: we're trying to create a way to introduce new concepts in a more modular way.
15:16:17 <manu> Here's the latest structure of the document in an HTML preview: https://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/blob/msporny-verification/index.html
15:16:47 <burn> zakim, who's on the phone?
15:16:47 <Zakim> Present: Dan_Burnett, colleen_kennedy, Dave_Longley, Manu_Sporny, Gregg_Kellogg, Adam_Migus, Richard_Varn, Matt_Stone, Nathan_George, ChristopherA, Chris_Webber, Christopher_Allen,
15:16:50 <Zakim> ... Ted_Thibodeau, Kim_Hamilton_Duffy, dezell, liam
15:16:57 <dezell> Manu: look at the table of contents on the left.
15:17:10 <burn> present- dezell
15:17:19 <burn> present+ David_Ezell
15:17:24 <burn> present- liam
15:17:29 <burn> present+ Liam_Quin
15:17:52 <burn> present- colleen_kennedy
15:17:57 <burn> present+ Colleen_Kennedy
15:17:58 <dezell> Manu: this PR version moves Verification up to the core part of the spec.  The core data model section will be revamped (so ignore for now).
15:18:13 <dezell> ...: but more basic concepts are now discussed in depth.
15:18:24 <dezell> ...: That's followed by advanced concepts.
15:19:01 <dezell> ...: Section 6 is "Verification" which outlines all the steps one might do to see if a claim is useful - syntax, information, expiration, non-revoked, etc.
15:19:43 <dezell> ...: I hope this will give us concrete sections of the spec we can point to when people want to know how we address certain issues.
15:19:57 <dezell> ...: we want to tie concepts to implementation.
15:20:05 <stonematt> q?
15:20:09 <burn> q+
15:20:19 <ChristopherA> +1
15:20:21 <stonematt> ack burn
15:20:37 <ChristopherA> q+
15:21:10 <stonematt> q?
15:21:32 <dezell> Burn:  I like this in general. I think it will be easier for people.  We need some deliniation between normative and non-normative.  Granted this can be difficult in a model per se.
15:21:39 <manu> q+ to note "prefer implementers/readers", normative vs. informative sections
15:21:44 <stonematt> ack ChristopherA
15:22:29 <cwebber2>     If revocation instructions are present, the claim must not have been revoked.
15:22:42 <dezell> Christopher:  I see some difficulty understanding between [sections] 6.3 and 6.4.
15:22:45 <stonematt> q?
15:23:19 <stonematt> q?
15:23:21 <manu> q+ to respond to 6.3 and 6.4
15:23:26 <dezell> ...: Manu had a discussion with someone online.  I liked Manu's responses, and I think they help illuminate the difference.
15:23:26 <stonematt> ack manu
15:23:26 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to note "prefer implementers/readers", normative vs. informative sections and to respond to 6.3 and 6.4
15:23:29 <cwebber2> s/<cwebber2>     If revocation instructions are present, the claim must not have been revoked.//
15:23:59 <burn> I actually prefer to help readers rather than implementers, myself
15:24:03 <dlongley> cwebber2... i think that's supposed to mean "If revocation instructions are present, they MUST/SHOULD be followed during verification."
15:24:17 <burn> Favoring users is always better
15:24:27 <dezell> Manu: Dan noted it might difficult for implementers to understand tradeoffs.  There is some question about whether these documents are for implementers or web developers.
15:24:27 <dlongley> that text needs updating (but all of section 6 does, mostly placeholders now)
15:24:48 <cwebber2> dlongley, thanks for the clarification
15:25:02 <dezell> ...: W3C documents seem to favor implementers, but I'd say we prefer that the document should be easy to read for a general technical audience.
15:25:04 <stonematt> q?
15:25:18 <dezell> ...: I don't know that we'll shove everything into the core datamodel section.
15:25:38 <burn> Manu, this was not a major point.  My major point was wrt normative/informatie.
15:25:49 <dezell> ...: we have some experience doing it this way with another spec (now in rec) and we'll see how it goes.
15:26:26 <dezell> ...: Yes - we'll have normative and informative sections.  The basic and advanced concept sections will be normative.
15:26:38 <stonematt> q?
15:27:05 <ChristopherA> Not the entity profile, but how to trust the entity profile
15:27:06 <dezell> ...: Christopher asked about 6.3 and 6.4 - entity profiles.  Our intent is to define entity profiles in this document.
15:27:48 <dezell> ...: Hopefully that will become clearer.  I hope the bulleted lists will in time be expanded to be more readable.
15:27:52 <cwebber2> s/Christopher Asked/Christopher Webber asked/
15:27:52 <stonematt> q?
15:27:53 <ChristopherA> Q+
15:28:00 <stonematt> ack ChristopherA
15:28:48 <manu> q+ to agree that "trust in the entity profile" is out of scope.... trust networks are out of scope.
15:28:57 <dlongley> agree that we should focus on semantics, not trust
15:29:05 <stonematt> q?
15:29:28 <dezell> Christopher A: I'm making a point that there are some requirements hiding in the discussion about entities and entity profiles.
15:29:47 <dlongley> q?
15:29:51 <stonematt> ack manu
15:29:51 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to agree that "trust in the entity profile" is out of scope.... trust networks are out of scope.
15:29:55 <dezell> ...: These issues might belong in other kinds of specs - what are those?
15:30:23 <dezell> Manu:  we don't outline the trust models in detail - that's on purpose since they are out of scope.
15:30:42 <dezell> ...: Our work is meant to be "trust model agnostic."
15:30:50 <stonematt> q?
15:30:53 <dezell> q+
15:31:12 <ChristopherA> But there are some assumptions about those choices here, and I just to be explicit that those choices are made elsewhere.
15:31:12 <TallTed> Kim asks, in webex chat - "Which github issue is Christopher referring to?"
15:31:14 <dezell> ...: these concepts are continuing to be explored in the Credentials CG.
15:31:55 <stonematt> q?
15:32:11 <ChristopherA> Issue was from an old version of the spec: https://github.com/WebOfTrustInfo/rebooting-the-web-of-trust-fall2016/issues/34#issuecomment-319298392
15:32:11 <trackbot> Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel.
15:32:21 <ChristopherA> of the DID spec.
15:32:25 <stonematt> q?
15:32:30 <dezell> ack me
15:32:30 <stonematt> ack dezell
15:32:46 <JoeAndrieu> q+
15:33:09 <dezell> Matt: seems like there's general positive feedback.  From a readability perspective, IMO it's a big improvement.
15:33:18 <stonematt> ack JoeAndrieu
15:33:18 <manu> q+ to ask if we want to merge the PR at this point and iterate on it after that?
15:34:09 <ChristopherA> +1 to Joe's comment.
15:34:10 <dezell> JoeAndrieu:  the notion of whether the "holder" is the "subject" and how can we trust that is a key concern.
15:34:22 <ChristopherA> I think there are some assumptions/requirements for other documents here.
15:34:27 <nage> q+ to add to the "entity profile" discussion
15:34:30 <dezell> ...: we need better language, and I think that topic is requiring more work.
15:34:46 <dezell> Matt: I suggest we open an issue for that terminology issue.
15:34:49 <manu> q+ to agree with JoeA, it's unresolved, and that was apparent in the DID spec conversation last week.
15:34:57 <manu> q- later
15:35:05 <stonematt> q?
15:35:46 <nage> ack me
15:35:46 <Zakim> nage, you wanted to add to the "entity profile" discussion
15:35:48 <dezell> Nathan:  entity profile has a lot of things related to privacy.  So there are discussions of both terminology and how an EP is used in practice.
15:35:54 <stonematt> ack manu
15:35:54 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to ask if we want to merge the PR at this point and iterate on it after that? and to agree with JoeA, it's unresolved, and that was apparent in the DID spec
15:35:57 <Zakim> ... conversation last week.
15:36:28 <dezell> Manu: Just to underscore - I didn't mean to say EP and Privacy are out of scope.  Selecting "One Trust Model" is out of scope per our charter.
15:36:42 <stonematt> q?
15:36:51 <JoeAndrieu> +1 to clarification about trust model, noting that the embedded/assumed trust models need some teasing out, esp wrt entity profiles
15:37:02 <dezell> ...: We had a good discussion last week, and it was obvious that we are still not totally aligned on terminology.
15:37:08 <ChristopherA> I'm not yet hearing that even if we don't choose a trust model, there are some requirements that a trust model must specify, and that list we may want to include.
15:37:29 <JoeAndrieu> +1 PR65 looks like a good improvement
15:37:34 <dezell> ...: But I think that's a >different< discussion than PR 65.
15:37:37 <cwebber2> +1 to PR 65
15:37:37 <stonematt> +1 to merge PR65
15:37:40 <nage> +1 on PR65
15:37:41 <dlongley> +1
15:37:47 <dezell> ...: I need to ask if it's OK to merge PR65.
15:38:06 <dezell> +1
15:38:16 <burn> +1
15:38:17 <TallTed> +1
15:38:18 <amigus> +1
15:38:29 <ChristopherA> +1
15:38:39 <dezell> Matt: hearing no objections.  So we can close this topic and move to the next one.  Merge is approved.
15:38:51 <dezell> Topic:  Milestones for next deliverables
15:39:09 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/08/01-vcwg-minutes.html dezell
15:39:37 <ChristopherA> I'm needing more examples, and if the spec changes, the examples are changed.
15:39:51 <ChristopherA> q+
15:40:13 <dezell> Matt: I'd like to start the discussion to get feedback on what deliverable milestones might be, with an eye to creating implementation milestones.
15:40:32 <dezell> Christopher A: trying to use examples in the document was harder than I thought.
15:40:49 <kimhd> kimhd has joined #vcwg
15:41:03 <dezell> ...: I'm not saying the examples should be change (they are illustrative) but we need to be sure we have covered all the subtleties.
15:41:24 <stonematt> q?
15:41:28 <stonematt> ack ChristopherA
15:41:38 <burn> q+
15:41:41 <dezell> ...: we need more detailed examples.  And we need to track that when the spec changes the examples change.
15:41:47 <manu> q+ to mention that this is what milestone 1 should deal w/ and setup - a test suite w/ examples.
15:41:50 <stonematt> ack burn
15:42:17 <ChristopherA> Linked Data has subtleties
15:42:24 <dezell> Burn:  Understood desire to make examples match.  Please feel free to create a PR to address any issues you see, or ask.  Feel empowered.
15:42:27 <stonematt> ack manu
15:42:27 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to mention that this is what milestone 1 should deal w/ and setup - a test suite w/ examples.
15:42:52 <ChristopherA> +1 on test suite
15:42:58 <dezell> Manu:  I agree with Christopher A.  Minimal Liable Implementations are the way to go - a test suite with examples will help.
15:43:03 <stonematt> q?
15:43:16 <stonematt> q+
15:43:17 <dlongley> s/Liable/Viable
15:43:26 <dezell> s/Liable/Viable/
15:43:57 <dezell> ...: Milestone 1 - demonstration signature issue and revocation.
15:44:32 <dezell> ...: once we have that, we can grow the examples in the test suite in the direction we want.
15:44:59 <dezell> ...: we should have tests and source documents, and expand dynamically when people pose questions.
15:45:00 <stonematt> +1 to milestone 1 be Minimum Viable Implementation that is scoped to Issue & Sign (not Expire and Revoke)
15:45:02 <burn> +1 to starting test suite.  Will need that to finish CR eventually anyway.
15:45:36 <stonematt> q?
15:45:52 <dezell> ...: Milestone 1 - a one month effort to create the above minimal viable implementation.
15:46:27 <stonematt> ack stonematt
15:46:40 <dezell> Matt: sounds like the minimal implementation is "issue sign", milestone 2 is "expiration revocation", and we can decide Milestone 3 later.
15:47:06 <stonematt> q?
15:47:36 <dezell> Manu: normally materials are kept in a project in GitHub.  Create a "milestone 1" and describe it.
15:47:49 <dezell> s/issue sign/issue signature/
15:47:58 <stonematt> q?
15:48:05 <dezell> ...: if the group agrees we can move ahead.
15:48:13 <ChristopherA> no objections
15:48:17 <dezell> Matt: people OK with these first two milestones?
15:48:19 <dezell> +1
15:48:21 <JoeAndrieu> +1
15:48:22 <dlongley> +1 to first two milestones
15:48:24 <colleen> +1
15:48:34 <cwebber2> +1
15:48:34 <amigus> +1
15:48:36 <manu> +1 to milestone 1 - check issuer/syntax/signature... milestone 2 - revocation, etc.
15:48:45 <ChristopherA> +1
15:48:46 <JoeAndrieu> q+ for Editor for Use Cases
15:48:55 <burn> q+
15:49:08 <stonematt> q?
15:49:15 <burn> q-
15:49:25 <stonematt> Topic: Editor for Use Cases
15:49:27 <dezell> ACTION: manu to describe the first two milestones (issue/signature) and (expiration revocation) in GitHub.
15:49:27 <trackbot> Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel.
15:49:43 <dezell> Topic: Editor for Use Cases
15:50:07 <stonematt> q?
15:50:07 <dezell> Joe: I can take responsibility for this role and pose changes through an issue.
15:50:12 <stonematt> ack JoeAndrieu
15:50:12 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to discuss Editor for Use Cases
15:50:20 <manu> q+ to wonder if we want to cut down too much on use cases?
15:50:32 <dezell> Matt: Thanks Joe.
15:50:42 <stonematt> q?
15:50:44 <stonematt> ack manu
15:50:44 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to wonder if we want to cut down too much on use cases?
15:51:02 <JoeAndrieu> q+
15:51:18 <dezell> Manu:  My question - I know we have a narrow charter, so I'm wondering how we focus the use cases without losing "out of scope" use cases.
15:51:30 <stonematt> q?
15:51:36 <dlongley> +1 for a non-normative "Future Considerations" section
15:51:41 <dezell> ...:  We want a way to express our future vision.
15:51:44 <dlongley> other specs have that.
15:51:48 <stonematt> ack JoeAndrieu
15:51:51 <TallTed> +1 retain "VC UCs out of scope for this WG" labeled as such
15:52:46 <stonematt> q?
15:53:02 <manu> +1 to what JoeA just said.
15:53:04 <dezell> JoeAndrieu: So that's one organizing (in/out of scope) principle, but I have others.  I'll include it in my recommendation.
15:53:09 <dlongley> q?
15:53:43 <dezell> Topic: Next Week's Agenda
15:53:43 <burn> q+
15:53:52 <stonematt> ack burn
15:53:53 <dezell> Matt: what should we address.
15:54:11 <DavidC> q+
15:54:20 <manu> q+ to ask "data model discussion" on next weeks agenda.... specifically, entity profile discussion.
15:54:23 <stonematt> q?
15:54:26 <dezell> Burn: no item to propose, but once the milestones are created, people in this group must evaluate Milestone 1 >very carefully<.
15:54:34 <stonematt> ack DavidC
15:54:36 <DavidC> I have an issue for next week, when I hope to be able to join via Webex
15:55:21 <dlongley> DavidC: go ahead and type your issue in there now
15:55:23 <manu> ack manu
15:55:23 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to ask "data model discussion" on next weeks agenda.... specifically, entity profile discussion.
15:55:24 <DavidC> On the CC group we discussed group attributes, and having a single attribute in each claim, and claims linked via a group ID
15:55:24 <stonematt> ack manu
15:55:42 <burn> I also said that people need to make sure their milestone 1 issues are entered into GitHub
15:55:49 <dezell> manu:  I think we should discuss entity profile and review the datamodel.
15:56:12 <stonematt> q?
15:56:43 <dezell> Matt:  thanks for the discussion.  Nice progress.
15:56:46 <dezell> Adjourned.
15:56:49 <stonematt> bye all
15:56:49 <ChristopherA> Ciao!!
15:56:55 <burn> rrsagent, make minutes
15:56:55 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/08/01-vcwg-minutes.html burn
15:56:55 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/08/01-vcwg-minutes.html dezell
15:57:45 <burn> zakim, who's on the phone?
15:57:45 <Zakim> Present: Dan_Burnett, Dave_Longley, Manu_Sporny, Gregg_Kellogg, Adam_Migus, Richard_Varn, Matt_Stone, Nathan_George, ChristopherA, Chris_Webber, Christopher_Allen, Ted_Thibodeau,
15:57:48 <Zakim> ... Kim_Hamilton_Duffy, David_Ezell, Liam_Quin, Colleen_Kennedy
15:59:25 <burn> present- ChristopherA
15:59:59 <burn> present+ Ted_Thibodeau
16:00:48 <burn> present+ Kim_Hamilton_Duffy
16:00:59 <burn> rrsagent, make minutes
16:00:59 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/08/01-vcwg-minutes.html burn
16:01:10 <burn> zakim, who's on the phone?
16:01:10 <Zakim> Present: Dan_Burnett, Dave_Longley, Manu_Sporny, Gregg_Kellogg, Adam_Migus, Richard_Varn, Matt_Stone, Nathan_George, Chris_Webber, Christopher_Allen, Ted_Thibodeau,
16:01:13 <Zakim> ... Kim_Hamilton_Duffy, David_Ezell, Liam_Quin, Colleen_Kennedy
16:03:02 <burn> present+ David_Ezell, Liam_Quin, Colleen_Kennedy
16:03:10 <burn> rrsagent, make minutes
16:03:10 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/08/01-vcwg-minutes.html burn
16:08:00 <burn> present+ Kim_Hamilton_Duffy
16:08:04 <burn> rrsagent, make minutes
16:08:04 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/08/01-vcwg-minutes.html burn
16:09:35 <burn> s/...:/.../g
16:09:40 <burn> rrsagent, make minutes
16:09:40 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/08/01-vcwg-minutes.html burn
16:10:52 <burn> rrsagent, bye
16:10:52 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2017/08/01-vcwg-actions.rdf :
16:10:52 <RRSAgent> ACTION: manu to describe the first two milestones (issue/signature) and (expiration revocation) in GitHub. [1]
16:10:52 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2017/08/01-vcwg-irc#T15-49-27