<janina> scribe: janina
<scribe> scribe: scott
<scott_h> jason: does everyone understand context/nature?
<scott_h> Janina: good to have introduction, especiall having to explain to others
<scott_h> jason: there's a W3C reocmmendaiton, 'verifiable dta model'
<scott_h> one part of relativley new technology tomake possible indivuals/organisaitons to issue claims about other entities
<scott_h> providence of which can be verified using crytogrpahic techniques
<scott_h> a number of partiesinvolved,
<scott_h> issuer of credentail, eg. governmetn department
<scott_h> that is the credential subject,
<scott_h> then there are two more partieis involved
<scott_h> credentail verifier - the party that checks credentail was validity issues
<scott_h> the fourth party is the credentail holder,
<scott_h> may be the same person as the subject that has a digital wallet
<scott_h> but it may be a different party as when teh sugject is not human,
<scott_h> e.g. parent that holds it for child
<scott_h> so there's range of scenarios where credentails are issued and verified
<scott_h> credentials contain claims: could be digital versions of credentials from educaotn, government, etc
<scott_h> coudl also be new to online world
<scott_h> The conversaotn at APA meeting indicated that the working gorup and associated community goruop
<scott_h> are intersted in undeststanding range of use cases
<scott_h> and which ones are a priority
<scott_h> janina: assertions about entities - by saying that, you're taking the perspective of issuer
<scott_h> which for accessibiity isn't as reelvent
<scott_h> in terms of user, assertions are about themselves that will be trusted by others
<scott_h> the rustworthiness of issues involved
<scott_h> e.g. pay cheque - trust you will get money when its cashed
<scott_h> and who you spend it with
<scott_h> the other key part:
<scott_h> it doesnot involve a third party database
<scott_h> e.g. if you trust apple, google, etc as trusted party
<Joshue108> Notes that the issuer and user may be two separate entities
<scott_h> jason: the verifier can verify without having to contact the issuer
<scott_h> janina: great
<scott_h> josh: issuer and verifier can be two separate entities, URL proivded
<scott_h> dont' agree with jason, but there are different roles between issuer, verifier and perosn receiving information
<Joshue108> I'm happy to play devils advocate here..
<Joshue108> +1 to talking about PDF and offline doc etc
<Joshue108> So there is a trust issue here really, and fragments being used as needed and required.
<Zakim> Joshue, you wanted to mention fingerprinting
<jasonjgw> Nothing arising.
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.154 of Date: 2018/09/25 16:35:56 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00) Default Present: jasonjgw, scott_h, SteveNoble, janina, Joshue, Judy, Joshue108_ Present: jasonjgw scott_h SteveNoble janina Joshue Judy Joshue108_ Joshue108 Found Scribe: janina Inferring ScribeNick: janina Found Scribe: scott WARNING: 3 scribe lines found (out of 84 total lines.) Are you sure you specified a correct ScribeNick? Scribes: janina, scott Found Date: 15 Jan 2020 People with action items: WARNING: IRC log location not specified! (You can ignore this warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain a link to the original IRC log.)[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]