<burn> s/present +/present+

<burn> scribenick: burn

<stonematt> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2017Jun/0006.html

Agenda review and Introductions

<Varn> Stone: Reviewed agenda

<manu> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2017Jun/0006.html

<scribe> scribenick: Varn

Stone: No new introductions

Stone_Matt: existing participants introducing themselves one per week

Charles_Engelke: introduced himself. he represents infotech inc in FL. They serve the construction industry. Interested in claims like bondedness, licensed, etc.

<cwebber2> prsent+ Chris_Webber

<amigus> There's more than one Adam, so I assume you meant me, burn...

cwebber2: representing spec ops for group and interested in federated identity

stonematt: FPWD note was published. Thanks to all and yay!

<manu> https://w3c.github.io/vc-use-cases/

<amigus> *clapping loudly*

WG Face to Face meeting @ TPAC 10

stonematt: reminder to all to get your hotel early as they will run out quickly
... price jumps to over $600 per night if you miss out on the room block. group rate is under $300.
... plan to be there for Wed plenary on the 8th, VCWG will meet TH-Fr the 9-10. We payments meeting earlier in week
... looking for suggested joint meetings at TPAC (sp?)

burn: looking for relevant groups to build networking connections or to work on overlapping issues
... asking for ideas and suggestions

dezell: web payments will be morphing into web commerce and we should meet even though our meetings overlap

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to suggest Privacy IG, Web Payments IG, and Web App Sec and Credential Management API... ?

dezell: says the logistics will work even though on same days

<dezell> I think meeting at the same time makes it easier to schedule.

manu: suggested privacy interest group to show we are paying attentions, web payments ig, web applications security group for possible relationship with credential api via browser

<burn> ACTION: chairs to contact Web Payments IG, Privacy IG, Web App Sec and Credential Management API about seeking input for TPAC and in general [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2017/06/13-vcwg-minutes.html#action01]

FPWD of Data Model spec

<stonematt> https://w3c.github.io/vc-data-model/

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

stonematt: next topic discuss first public working draft of the data model doc--what is blocking pub of first working draft. asking for specifics from members

<manu> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/56

<stonematt> manu's email: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2017Jun/0007.html

<gkellogg> https://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://raw.githubusercontent.com/w3c/vc-data-model/msporny-fpwd-prose-cleanup/index.html

manu: only have one remaining pull request PR 56 which reworks intro text. some new diagrams inserted and aligned language with them. More conversational tone. sent email out to list to view latest text. discussion on the mods ongoing. when done with this PR we are ready for FPWD on the DM

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to note only remaining PR...

manu: some concerns on terminology. need to hear types of changes and objections to pub if we address PR 56 and finalize that

JoeAndrieu: ok on email change as it can be in a claim. some issues on terminology. holder is one

<burn> this is the time if needed before FPWD

JoeAndrieu: not sure this is before FPWD, but holder and issuer are problematical. person using the claim may not hold it in some digital or mechanical way.
... how does someone assert control over a particular claim if not by a DID. that can correlate a person to the claim. This relates to holder.
... issuer may be better as "authority" as we want to know if the one who asserted the claim is a legitimate issuer/asserter of such a claim

<dlongley> perhaps "author" is a little more broad than "authority" -- so as to not assume that the issuer is always acting in some "official" capacity

stonematt: authority is a good term. we picked issuer as covering the informal as well as more rigorous

<dlongley> +1 to authority only covering some portion of the use cases

stonematt: need a term that can cover both and authority seems bigger and more bureaucratic than issuer

<manu> Manu: One of the things we need to pay attention to is how easy it is to talk about this stuff in front of people where they get what we're talking about pretty quickly.

<manu> Manu: Authority is difficult because people may think that the claim has to come from a corporate/government.

<manu> Manu: Presenter is difficult because it's not always the role of that box... that role both receives and presents

stonematt: experience is that terms with official sounding names like credential bureau turned folks off and stymied user acceptance

<amigus> -1 to authority for all the reasons folks are saying.

dlongley: agrees that authority would seem to cut out less official issuers. author may be better.

<JoeAndrieu> +1 author

<stonematt> -1 author

-1 author

<dlongley> thinks "issuer" is pretty good.

manu: author and authority does not work across all use cases such as banking
... we have looked at author and authority before and implies one needs an official status or permission to issue and author does not sound official enough.

<stonematt> +1 issuer

manu: issuer found the middle ground

<amigus> +1 issuer

<stonematt> also want to differentiate between holder (subject) and agent who can ack on behalf of holder

<amigus> Authority could be defined as a type of issuer but it shouldn't replace the term issuer

manu: presenter is too narrow as there are other things a holder does besides present so it implies something too narrow

<stonematt> no term is going to be perfect...

<dlongley> each of the current terms is the result of a compromise

manu: is the objection enough to prevent FPWD or no?

<manu> +1 to what Nathan just said!

nage: issuer and verifier inspector and other terms we are using have validation and linking to established regimines

<dlongley> +1

<manu> We need to make sure we're aligning w/ terms that other identity communities are using.

+1

<stonematt> +1 to adopting terms that are in use in other contexts that are relevant here.

<dlongley> other terms used in other industries, e.g. credit cards: "card issuer" => "card holder" (both recipient and presenter)

JoeAndrieu: issuer is accurate even if not complete so no need to hold up on that. Holder is less sufficient as a term. we earlier said we would have terminology conversation later. when is later going to happen. frustrating that it gets shut down. when can we do it?

<nage> Sovrin's crypto team has been using the term "prover" (some also use "holder" but we've been a bit uncomfortable with calling it "holder" in all cases for some of the same reasons Joe mentions)

<dlongley> +1 to wait on FPWD if people are uncomfortable with the term.

stonematt: issuer may be too much of a catchall as may be some other terms. we do need to careful as terms used get wide adoption

amigus: consider using things as modifiers to indicate subsets of a general word

<Zakim> manu, you wanted to note that we're not trying to shut down the conversation - so I'm hearing, this is important enough to hold up FPWD, which is fine, let's have the discussion.

amigus: things meant something like a type of issuer to modify the phrase issuer

manu: need to get the terminology set before FPWD. if need separate call to address we can.

we can also do this on our next call

need proposals before we can discuss

<JoeAndrieu> +1

stonematt: no objection to manu's suggestion

<JoeAndrieu> +1 more proposals

<manu> Varn: Those that have interest in terminology proposals make suggestions now and we can discuss next week.

<amigus> +1 to handling it it in a subsequent meeting once proposals are made rather than another meeting.

JoeAndrieu: more conversation on github, make a variety of specific proposals, discuss as much off line as much as possible, question as to whether to have it on main call

<gkellogg> +1

<JoeAndrieu> +1 for main call

<dlongley> +1

<cwebber2> +1

<stonematt> +1

<ChristopherA__> +1 discuss in github

<manu> +0.5

stonematt: asked for plus have on call and minus if dont want on call

+1

<MattLarson> +1

<Colleen> +1

<amigus> +1

<Charles_Engelke> +1

<dezell> +1 with reservations

<bigbluehat> +1

need to define the terminology for a +.5

<nage> +1 on terminology discussions never ending, but we need a consensus on our working definition

<JoeAndrieu> +1 for doing it and getting done with terminology

stonematt: seconds note that terminology discussions are a bit of a morrass

<dlongley> i think the concern was that people who were interested in the terminology discussion wouldn't have time to join yet another call -- so having the discussion once on the main call seems reasonable.

<dlongley> (Richard's concern I mean, is what I was hearing)

burn: got dropped and rejoined. understands concern but also possible to add comment to documents indicating not done/baked/dragon-free and work still needed

Open PRs

<manu> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/7

stonematt: question on issue 7 on agenda. it has been closed so no need to discuss

<burn> FPWD is first priority until we get it done.

<manu> +1 for putting a focus on Verification and Revocation...

stonematt: revoke and validate are possible next issues to address once FPWD of DM is done. please start looking at the areas of uncertainty to create a batting order for discussions needed to resolve/inform/solve

<ChristopherA> I'm also stuck on getting some basic schema into schema.org

burn: verification and revocation floated to the top in a previous poll

<manu> Yes, we can run these in parallel

ChristopherA: from an implementer POV there are a number of things we have closed on that are good to go that are schema oriented we could submit to schema.org and other places that verifiers and validators and look at them and confirm

<ChristopherA> Since I'm hoping for the non-controversial ones, it may not require discussion, but needs more knowledge then I have.

<manu> The only limiting factor is bodies that we can throw at each work stream.

stonematt: can these suggestions be done in parallel?

<burn> Christopher, which issues are they?

<ChristopherA> Is there someone besides manu that can help with schema.org stuff, I'm willing to learn.

stonematt: who is willing to help with schema.org? no volunteers now but manu who is overloaded.
... out of time and will address on next call

Call ended

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.152  of Date: 2017/02/06 11:04:15  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/present +/present+/
Succeeded: s/present +/present+/
FAILED: s/present +/present+/
Succeeded: s/manu:  was cheering for the warriors and lost his voice?//
Succeeded: s/burn:  burns manu//
Succeeded: s/thanks.  did not know that command//

WARNING: Replacing previous Present list. (Old list: Adam_Migus, Charles_Engelke, ChristopherA, Christopher_Allen, Colleen, Dan_Burnett, Dave_Longley, Gregg_Kellogg, John_Tibbetts, Manu_Sporny, Nathan_George, Ted_Thibodeau, stonematt, David_Ezell)
Use 'Present+ ... ' if you meant to add people without replacing the list,
such as: <dbooth> Present+ Dan_Burnett, John_Tibbetts, Ted_Thibodeau, Nathan_George, Gregg_Kellogg, Christopher_Allen, Dave_Longley, Charles_Engelke, Colleen, stonematt, Adam_Migus, Manu_Sporny


WARNING: Replacing previous Present list. (Old list: Adam_Migus, Charles_Engelke, Christopher_Allen, Colleen_Kennedy, Dan_Burnett, Dave_Longley, Gregg_Kellogg, John_Tibbetts, Manu_Sporny, Nathan_George, Ted_Thibodeau, Matt_Stone)
Use 'Present+ ... ' if you meant to add people without replacing the list,
such as: <dbooth> Present+ Dan_Burnett, John_Tibbetts, Ted_Thibodeau, Nathan_George, Gregg_Kellogg, Christopher_Allen, Dave_Longley, Charles_Engelke, Adam_Migus, Manu_Sporny, David_Ezell


WARNING: Replacing previous Present list. (Old list: Dan_Burnett, John_Tibbetts, Ted_Thibodeau, Nathan_George, Gregg_Kellogg, Christopher_Allen, Dave_Longley, Charles_Engelke, Adam_Migus, Manu_Sporny, David_Ezell, Chris_Webber)
Use 'Present+ ... ' if you meant to add people without replacing the list,
such as: <dbooth> Present+ Dan_Burnett, John_Tibbetts, Ted_Thibodeau, Nathan_George, Gregg_Kellogg, Christopher_Allen, Dave_Longley, Charles_Engelke, Adam_Migus, Manu_Sporny, David_Ezell


WARNING: Replacing previous Present list. (Old list: Dan_Burnett, John_Tibbetts, Ted_Thibodeau, Nathan_George, Gregg_Kellogg, Christopher_Allen, Dave_Longley, Charles_Engelke, Adam_Migus, Manu_Sporny, David_Ezell, Joe_Andrieu, Matt_Larson, Richard_Varn, Rob_Trainer)
Use 'Present+ ... ' if you meant to add people without replacing the list,
such as: <dbooth> Present+ Dan_Burnett, John_Tibbetts, Ted_Thibodeau, Nathan_George, Gregg_Kellogg, Christopher_Allen, Dave_Longley, Charles_Engelke, Adam_Migus, Manu_Sporny, David_Ezell


WARNING: Replacing previous Present list. (Old list: Dan_Burnett, John_Tibbetts, Ted_Thibodeau, Nathan_George, Gregg_Kellogg, Christopher_Allen, Dave_Longley, Charles_Engelke, Adam_Migus, Manu_Sporny, David_Ezell, Benjamin_Young)
Use 'Present+ ... ' if you meant to add people without replacing the list,
such as: <dbooth> Present+ Dan_Burnett, John_Tibbetts, Ted_Thibodeau, Nathan_George, Gregg_Kellogg, Christopher_Allen, Dave_Longley, Charles_Engelke, Adam_Migus, Manu_Sporny, David_Ezell

Present: Dan_Burnett John_Tibbetts Ted_Thibodeau Nathan_George Gregg_Kellogg Christopher_Allen Dave_Longley Charles_Engelke Adam_Migus Manu_Sporny David_Ezell Colleen_Kennedy Matt_Stone Chris_Webber Joe_Andrieu Matt_Larson Richard_Varn Rob_Trainer Benjamin_Young
Regrets: Liam
Found ScribeNick: burn
Found ScribeNick: Varn
Inferring Scribes: burn, Varn
Scribes: burn, Varn
ScribeNicks: burn, Varn
Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2017Jun/0006.html
Got date from IRC log name: 13 Jun 2017
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2017/06/13-vcwg-minutes.html
People with action items: chairs

WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines.
You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.