14:44:11 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #vcwg
14:44:11 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/06/20-vcwg-irc
14:44:24 <burn> rrsagent, draft minutes
14:44:24 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/06/20-vcwg-minutes.html burn
14:44:28 <burn> rrsagent, make logs public
14:45:36 <dezell> dezell has joined #vcwg
14:47:48 <burn> Chair: Richard Varn, Matt Stone, Dan Burnett
14:48:13 <burn> Agenda:  https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2017Jun/0011.html
14:48:37 <burn> rrsagent, draft minutes
14:48:37 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/06/20-vcwg-minutes.html burn
14:48:52 <burn> Regrets: Dan_Burnett
14:51:34 <varn> varn has joined #vcwg
14:53:13 <stonematt> stonematt has joined #vcwg
14:53:55 <Charles_Engelke> Charles_Engelke has joined #vcwg
14:54:31 <JoeAndrieu> JoeAndrieu has joined #vcwg
15:00:40 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #vcwg
15:01:19 <manu> Present+ Richard_Varn, Matt_Stone, Joe_Andrieu, Chris_Webber, Gregg_Kellogg, Manu_Sporny, David_Longley
15:01:30 <manu> Present+ Charles_Engelke
15:01:34 <stonematt> present+
15:01:44 <manu> present- stonematt
15:01:55 <dlongley> zakim, who's here?
15:01:55 <Zakim> Present: Richard_Varn, Matt_Stone, Joe_Andrieu, Chris_Webber, Gregg_Kellogg, Manu_Sporny, David_Longley, Charles_Engelke
15:01:58 <Zakim> On IRC I see gkellogg, JoeAndrieu, Charles_Engelke, stonematt, varn, dezell, RRSAgent, Zakim, burn, tensor5, dlehn, dlongley, robert, manu, liam, cwebber2, ChristopherA, bigbluehat
15:02:57 <JoeAndrieu> varn: introductions to start
15:03:05 <stonematt> zakim pick a victim
15:03:12 <manu> zakim, pick a victim
15:03:12 <Zakim> Not knowing who is chairing or who scribed recently, I propose Gregg_Kellogg
15:03:33 <Colleen> Colleen has joined #vcwg
15:03:40 <manu> Present+ Colleen_Kennedy
15:03:47 <dezell> present+ dezell
15:03:50 <Colleen> present+ colleen_kennedy
15:03:53 <stonematt> Scribe: JoeAndrieu
15:04:05 <stonematt> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2017Jun/0011.html
15:04:08 <manu> present- colleen_kennedy
15:04:12 <manu> present+ David_Ezell
15:04:15 <manu> present- dezell
15:04:21 <manu> rrsagent, make logs public
15:04:42 <manu> rrsagent, make minutes
15:04:42 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/06/20-vcwg-minutes.html manu
15:04:50 <manu> Topic: Introductions and Re-Introductions
15:04:57 <JoeAndrieu> Greg Kellogg: Introducing self.
15:05:25 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #vcwg
15:05:27 <JoeAndrieu> : Works with Spec-Ops. Also RDF-A, JSON-LD and other things
15:05:44 <JoeAndrieu> Face to Face in November at TPAC
15:05:51 <manu> Topic: Face to Face in November at TPAC
15:05:52 <ChristopherA> Reg is now open
15:06:12 <dezell> q+
15:06:15 <JoeAndrieu> thanks
15:06:16 <manu> Present+ Christopher_Allen
15:06:19 <manu> s/thanks//
15:06:39 <TallTed> present+ Ted_Thibodeau
15:06:41 <JoeAndrieu> varn: Get a room asap or expect to pay more.
15:06:41 <ChristopherA> With IRCcloud you are always logged in.
15:06:46 <manu> rrsagent, make minutes
15:06:46 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/06/20-vcwg-minutes.html manu
15:07:14 <liam> present+ Liam_Quin
15:07:24 <manu> Meeting: Verifiable Claims Working Group Telecon
15:07:33 <JoeAndrieu> david: tried to get a room, but there were none for Friday. You might try leaving a day or two off at either end. If you try for the whole week, you're likely to find no rooms available
15:07:39 <manu> rrsagent, make minutes
15:07:39 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/06/20-vcwg-minutes.html manu
15:07:46 <varn> ack liam
15:07:46 <Zakim> liam, you wanted to note more rooms may be available next week
15:07:49 <stonematt> q?
15:07:56 <manu> ack dezell
15:08:16 <JoeAndrieu> liam: They have requested extra rooms, which should become available in the next week or two, at a slightly higher price
15:08:16 <nage> nage has joined #vcwg
15:08:31 <manu> Present+ Nathan_George
15:08:44 <varn> ack dezell
15:08:59 <varn> q?
15:09:24 <JoeAndrieu> varn: FPWD data model
15:09:34 <manu> Topic: FPWD Data Model Discussion
15:09:45 <JoeAndrieu> ... topic 56 hottest topic
15:09:46 <stonematt> Topic: FPWD Data Model Discussion - terminology in PR 56
15:10:06 <tensor5> tensor5 has joined #vcwg
15:10:17 <JoeAndrieu> ... it's been run out over as many as 60 messages and has become hard to follow what is controversy and consensus
15:10:42 <stonematt> q?
15:10:56 <stonematt> q+
15:10:58 <JoeAndrieu> ... we want to put together a summary of the points of contention
15:11:57 <JoeAndrieu> ... in our FPWD we can note the terms that may be challenging. Alternatively, we can remove those terms that are too controversial.
15:12:18 <manu> q+ to propose a couple of specific tried-and-true ways forward and hear from JoeAndrieu.
15:12:29 <JoeAndrieu> ... asking interesting parties to summaries what the main issues are
15:12:50 <JoeAndrieu> ... if there are camps or advocacy groups, please identify (to help clarify things)
15:12:55 <stonematt>  q?
15:13:10 <varn> q?
15:13:18 <varn> ack stonematt
15:14:20 <JoeAndrieu> stonematt: doesn't seem we're too far apart. started with issuer (creates claims and give them to holder), the holder, and the inspector who is the party who wants to verify the claim is from the issuer
15:14:48 <JoeAndrieu> by and large, issuer and presenter is mostly considetent. "holder" is a different issue
15:15:15 <JoeAndrieu> ...by and large, issuer and presenter is mostly considetent. "holder" is a different issue
15:15:25 <varn> ack manu
15:15:25 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to propose a couple of specific tried-and-true ways forward and hear from JoeAndrieu.
15:15:29 <varn> q?
15:15:44 <JoeAndrieu> ...maybe we can focus attention on "holder" instead of issuer/inspector
15:16:06 <JoeAndrieu> manu: +1 to stonematt's comments
15:16:21 <nage> Sovrin developers have had this debate many times, and the crypto folks there have been calling this entity the "prover" while the others have continued to call it the "holder".  The "user" term implies the wrong things, and we have not moved in that direction.
15:16:51 <JoeAndrieu> ...good news is as we were engaging, there was good alignment about what the roles actually do, even while the names might be in dispute
15:17:15 <JoeAndrieu> ... one problem is that the conversation is currently led by the vocal parties. we're missing the quite voices.
15:17:40 <JoeAndrieu> ... we need to hear from the people that are silence
15:17:58 <varn> q?
15:18:03 <Rob_Trainer> Rob_Trainer has joined #vcwg
15:18:17 <JoeAndrieu> ... one challenge is whether or not those voices understand the issues deeply before we call for consensus
15:18:23 <manu> Website for trying terminology out in our definitions: https://vcwg-terminology-poll.firebaseapp.com/
15:18:53 <JoeAndrieu> ... this poll has three drop downs, one for each of the three terms we've discussed
15:19:34 <JoeAndrieu> ... so for people new to the terminology, it will help them understand how the terminology would look in prose
15:20:49 <JoeAndrieu> ... the poll will use rank-choice to order pollees opinions
15:21:03 <varn> q?
15:21:05 <JoeAndrieu> ... that's manu's polling proposal
15:21:17 <stonematt> q?
15:21:24 <JoeAndrieu> ... would like to hear from Joe Andrieu and others
15:22:15 <JoeAndrieu> ... note the current tool isn't the voting mechanism. just the prose generator to help people read the terms in context
15:22:31 <JoeAndrieu> q+
15:22:33 <TallTed> Repository seems to be a Holder?
15:22:56 <JoeAndrieu> varn: is the presenter an agent
15:23:08 <dlongley> q+
15:23:15 <JoeAndrieu> manu: it's all of those things
15:23:31 <stonematt> q?
15:23:40 <varn> ack JoeAndrieu
15:23:45 <varn> q?
15:23:54 <nage> you could consider the middle entity the agent in the epistemic sense (whether it is the subject or some entity acting on behalf of the subject).  This is why we have been calling it the prover, becuase they may or may not be holding the claims used to issue these proofs.
15:24:26 <nage> but it is correct to say that they have access to them
15:24:33 <nage> to construct the proof
15:24:52 <TallTed> q+
15:24:57 <ChristopherA> Q+
15:25:02 <manu> JoeAndrieu: I like this approach a lot, I think Matt's summary is mostly right. Part of where this went wrong for me, the terms rang wrong... My off the cuff interpretation of that was not accurate. Most of the use cases, like ID2020 use case, those individuals don't have wherewithall to hold anything. I don't think someone else is the agent, you can solve it by having claims in the cloud - in distributed sense - distributed ledger, IPFS, etc. That felt confusing
15:25:02 <manu> to me.
15:25:22 <varn> ack dlongley
15:25:26 <manu> JoeAndrieu: I think the polling mechanism gives us an opprotunity to talk about it. I wanted to have this conversation, we are having the conversation. This addresses my concerns about process.
15:25:41 <JoeAndrieu> thanks, manu
15:25:50 <manu> s/thanks, manu//
15:25:55 <manu> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:25:55 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/06/20-vcwg-minutes.html manu
15:26:25 <JoeAndrieu> dlongley: perhaps we are trying to explain to much too soon, e.g. a verifier and a inspector, subject and holder, etc.
15:26:34 <stonematt> +1 on keep is simple and add nuance later
15:26:35 <JoeAndrieu> ... issue claim, about someone, presented to someone else
15:27:12 <JoeAndrieu> ... moving claims, storing claims, etc. may be extra and unnecessary to the core
15:27:14 <varn> ack TallTed
15:27:21 <varn> q?
15:27:26 <JoeAndrieu> ... so maybe "subject" is the core to a solution
15:28:05 <JoeAndrieu> ChristopherA: note the subject is not mentioned after the statement becomes a claim
15:28:41 <JoeAndrieu> ... in other conversations, describing things in a physical sense can make the things simplify.
15:29:02 <JoeAndrieu> ... we can complexify later if useful, but starting with the physical starts simple
15:29:11 <varn> ack ChristopherA
15:29:33 <JoeAndrieu> a/ChristopherA/TallTed
15:29:54 <JoeAndrieu> ChristopherA: the holder of the keys gives the right to control
15:29:56 <varn> ack liam
15:29:57 <Zakim> liam, you wanted to observe people are viewing the roles differently (e.g. is "holder"/"Claimant" a human, software, a proxy, a third party?) and the terms might need to be
15:29:59 <Zakim> ... specialized, e.g. "Claiming user"
15:30:31 <JoeAndrieu> liam: from the outside, when people don't agree, often the reason is they are looking at it from different perspectives and not realize it
15:30:50 <JoeAndrieu> ... maybe what we need are phrases
15:31:02 <manu> q+ to note clarifying phrases are here (and will be added to): https://vcwg-terminology-poll.firebaseapp.com/
15:31:03 <JoeAndrieu> ... that show in more detail what is specifically going on.
15:31:16 <varn> I like modifiers to nouns to distinguish special aspects or use case variables
15:31:23 <dlongley> issuer of a claim, the subject of a claim, evaluator of a claim
15:31:28 <stonematt> q?
15:31:29 <TallTed> ClaimMaker, ClaimSubject, ClaimQuestioner, ClaimDocument ?
15:31:31 <varn> ack manu
15:31:31 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to note clarifying phrases are here (and will be added to): https://vcwg-terminology-poll.firebaseapp.com/
15:32:13 <JoeAndrieu> .. manu: I don't think anyone would oppose issues, subjects, evaluator
15:32:34 <JoeAndrieu> ... subject may be the least offensive
15:32:57 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to talk about limits of subject without holder/presenter/claimant
15:33:01 <varn> ]q+
15:33:10 <varn> q+
15:33:19 <TallTed> (middle `Holder` menu doesn't include `Subject`...)
15:33:35 <JoeAndrieu> ... the trick is bringing voices up to speed on the concerns and possibilities of the different terms
15:34:04 <dlongley> note that that website doesn't have an option to replace "Presenter/Holder/Etc" with Subject
15:34:06 <varn> ack JoeAndrieu
15:34:06 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to talk about limits of subject without holder/presenter/claimant
15:34:27 <nage> the idea of subject gets very complicated, as you have to address what entities get identifiers in the system (do you issue a claim to the car, or to the cars owner?  who is the proper subject? Ultimately both ways need to work.)
15:35:03 <manu> JoeAndrieu: The suggestion that we don't need the term Holder sounds pretty provocative. We have lots of use cases where presenter is not the subject, and because we're not solving the protocol issues, and we have the data schema, that is a dominant situation. This is at the core of privacy/delegation issues.
15:35:06 <TallTed> ClaimMaker, ClaimSubject, ClaimDocument, ClaimPresenter, ClaimQuestioner
15:35:30 <varn> ack varn
15:35:33 <manu> JoeAndrieu: I like the push I'm hearing toward simplifying - maybe moving/storing claims are not key to the data model, but understanding person who is manipulating is not the Subject is important.
15:35:38 <TallTed> q+
15:36:16 <manu> Varn: Having three generic phrases, A, B, C - none of those words are going to satisfy everyone. You need a secondary data model component that has a modifier that attaches to it.
15:36:17 <JoeAndrieu> varn: having three generic phrases, Issuer, Holder, Inspector. Aren't going to address all use cases
15:36:31 <JoeAndrieu> ... you could have modifiers or categories
15:36:37 <manu> Varn: Categories of issuers, categories of subjects, qualities are going to vary significantly.
15:36:47 <JoeAndrieu> ... universities may be one type of issuer
15:36:55 <JoeAndrieu> ... evidence shown may vary
15:37:08 <varn> q?
15:37:10 <manu> Varn: Phrases are more useful in explaining what we mean by something - put those three units together with modifiers, how these things are supposed to function - these phrases, with these modifiers come together.
15:37:14 <varn> ack TallTed
15:37:16 <stonematt> we have to be careful about asserting qualitative characteristics about the actors
15:37:24 <varn> noted
15:37:45 <varn> but level of quality according to a spec is common
15:38:04 <JoeAndrieu> TallTed: now five terms: claim maker,bclaim subject, claim document, claim presenter, claim questioner
15:38:08 <JoeAndrieu> did I get that right?
15:38:15 <varn> for example, verified to what level?
15:38:27 <JoeAndrieu> ... ClaimMaker, ClaimSubject, ClaimDocument, ClaimPresenter, ClaimQuestioner
15:38:59 <JoeAndrieu> ... the holder is not necessarily the subject nor the presenter
15:39:23 <varn> q?
15:39:27 <gkellogg> q+
15:39:33 <dlongley> q?
15:39:41 <varn> ack gkellog
15:40:06 <JoeAndrieu> gkellogg: I like Ted's separation between the subject and the agent presenting that claim to a verifier/inspector
15:40:06 <stonematt> varn you've moving into the a discussion about the rigor that's required to satisfy the inspector for the claim or benefit at hand.  The datamodel shouldn't care
15:40:24 <nage> q+ to mention the concept of claims vs proofs
15:40:31 <JoeAndrieu> ... that has been confusing. That is definitely the case sometimes; the separation is quite useful
15:40:38 <varn> ack nage
15:40:38 <Zakim> nage, you wanted to mention the concept of claims vs proofs
15:40:50 <gkellogg> q?
15:41:08 <JoeAndrieu> nage: some of the protocols introduce the concept of a claim v the ability to prove the content of the claim without divulging the claim itself
15:41:32 <manu> q+ to ask if we've talked this to death and we can start moving toward a set of phrases + ranked choice vote.
15:41:41 <JoeAndrieu> ... would like to separate the claim from the proof so that proofs can be presented without divulging the claim as issued
15:41:47 <varn> i suggest we add ClaimSeeker at some time to identify those who are looking for ClaimSubjects with specific characteristics
15:41:55 <varn> ack manyu
15:41:59 <varn> ack manu
15:41:59 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to ask if we've talked this to death and we can start moving toward a set of phrases + ranked choice vote.
15:42:23 <JoeAndrieu> manu: I think we've talked this to death
15:42:56 <JoeAndrieu> ... as an editor of the document, I have no idea what to write. can we start moving towards a numerical driven consensus vetting?
15:43:24 <gkellogg> +1 to creating ranked-choice poll
15:43:32 <JoeAndrieu> ... +1 to poll
15:43:34 <cwebber2> +1 to getting data and moving forward :)
15:43:35 <JoeAndrieu> q+
15:43:43 <stonematt> +1 for polling soon.
15:43:47 <varn> ack JoeAndrieu
15:44:41 <dlongley> the name for that is entity profile (currently)
15:44:41 <nage> yes, composite proofs, where you prove that multiple claims were issued to the same ______
15:44:44 <ChristopherA> The presentation has lots of crypto involved
15:44:46 <nage> err....subject
15:44:47 <dlongley> and it's in the spec
15:44:56 <ChristopherA> Q+
15:45:17 <varn> ack  ChristopherA
15:45:18 <dlongley> the name for combining claims into a single doc about an entity is an "entity profile" and it's in the doc.
15:45:20 <stonematt> +1 to clarifying what a claim is in this ecosystem and all the ways it might be interpreted and used
15:46:04 <dlongley> q+
15:46:21 <JoeAndrieu> christopherA: similar thought to Joe's. Different kinds of claims (bearer claims). There are lots of different things that can go on during presentation of a claim. Proof of control. Proof of right to present. All of these are out of scope of just the data model.
15:47:03 <nage> +1 that it is very difficult to talk about some of the important terminology distinctions without any sense of a protocol
15:47:24 <JoeAndrieu> varn: summary: manu will get the polling tool working so people can see the terms in context.
15:48:01 <JoeAndrieu> ... we want to ask the poll not to decide the matter, but to provide data to the editors for capturing the diverse perspectives of the working group
15:48:16 <dlongley> q?
15:48:24 <varn> ack dlongley
15:48:53 <JoeAndrieu> dlongley: quick agreement with ChristopherA: different protocols will use these claims differently.
15:49:05 <JoeAndrieu> ... so lets keep to the simplest model
15:49:08 <stonematt> q+
15:49:19 <varn> ack stonematt
15:49:30 <stonematt> on mute...
15:49:40 <JoeAndrieu> ... also, "entity profile" is the combination of claims presented to an inspector
15:50:47 <JoeAndrieu> stonematt: this is data model oriented language (not protocol oriented). If there's a way in the polling tool to scope the discussion around that focus area, so people can avoid the use cases driven distinctions
15:51:36 <JoeAndrieu> manu: will coordinate with the loudest voices to distill a decent polling tool
15:51:58 <varn> to manu--will you consider the compound terms discussed today?
15:52:01 <JoeAndrieu> ... then next week we'll have a chat. one last chance to pipe up. then a week long poll
15:52:18 <JoeAndrieu> ... and a final decision by the editors follows
15:52:56 <JoeAndrieu> varn: will we include compound terms?
15:53:09 <JoeAndrieu> manu: if you want them, make a case and rally support
15:53:48 <JoeAndrieu> varn: next topic: batting order of upcoming issues
15:54:13 <manu> Topic: Upcoming Issues
15:54:16 <stonematt> q?
15:54:18 <TallTed> Compound terms are VERY useful when crossing disciplinary boundaries. If people who aren't fully versed in this group use one of our non-compound term in their own discipline, with conflicting meaning, there will be problems.
15:54:22 <JoeAndrieu> Richard, is there a link?
15:54:37 <JoeAndrieu> varn: issue 9 and issue 35
15:54:49 <stonematt> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/9  and https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/35
15:54:56 <JoeAndrieu> ... if you have an item you'd like to see addressed, open an issue.
15:55:01 <manu> TallTed, agreed - but the compound part depends heavily on the protocol... and if we use the same word, like 'claim' for each compound term, then its usefulness is diminished.
15:55:13 <manu> s/depends/can depend/
15:55:45 <varn> ack JoeAndrieu
15:56:09 <stonematt> composable and decomposable artifacts?
15:56:39 <manu> JoeAndrieu: How a claim or a set of claims (a credential) are issued from an issuer, and gets sliced/diced into something for evaluator, we need to figure that out - we don't talk about entity profiles in that context - terms in previous things should be 'claimant' delivers 'entity profile' to inspector.
15:57:19 <JoeAndrieu> joe: will take the task to add that as an issue
15:57:42 <JoeAndrieu> varn: that's what we ask. either comment on  9 or 35 or add your own issue
15:58:10 <JoeAndrieu> q+
15:58:24 <varn> ack JoeAndrieu
15:58:42 <manu> JoeAndrieu: Verifiable Claims came up at ID2020 - there was explicit interest in coordinating and having a liason. I'm point person on that for the moment.
15:58:48 <manu> rrsagent, make minutes
15:58:48 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/06/20-vcwg-minutes.html manu
15:58:49 <stonematt> +1 for JoeAndrieu to liase w/ ID2020 :)
15:59:09 <stonematt> bye all.
15:59:11 <JoeAndrieu> varn : adjourned and thanks
15:59:15 <manu> rrsagent, make minutes
15:59:15 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/06/20-vcwg-minutes.html manu
17:27:05 <tensor5> tensor5 has joined #vcwg
18:27:57 <Zakim> Zakim has left #vcwg
20:05:57 <liam_> liam_ has joined #vcwg