14:42:36 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #vcwg
14:42:36 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2017/10/10-vcwg-irc
14:42:46 <burn> rrsagent, draft minutes
14:42:46 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/10/10-vcwg-minutes.html burn
14:42:51 <burn> rrsagent, make logs public
14:43:06 <burn> Meeting: Verifiable Claims Working Group
14:43:22 <burn> Chair: Dan_Burnett, Matt_Stone, Richard_Varn
14:43:32 <burn> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2017Oct/0005.html
14:49:09 <stonematt> stonematt has joined #vcwg
14:53:18 <burn> present+ Dan_Burnett
14:56:09 <Charles_Engelke> Charles_Engelke has joined #vcwg
14:58:06 <burn> present+ Charles_Engelke
14:58:23 <burn> present+ Kim_Hamilton_Duffy
14:58:53 <burn> present+ Dave_Longley
14:59:46 <burn> present+ Nathan_George
15:00:19 <kimhd> kimhd has joined #vcwg
15:00:26 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #vcwg
15:00:49 <burn> present+ David_Chadwick
15:01:51 <burn> present+ Colleen_Kennedy
15:01:58 <burn> present+ Ted_Thibodeau
15:02:03 <colleen> colleen has joined #vcwg
15:02:06 <nage> nage has joined #vcwg
15:02:16 <colleen> present+ colleen_kennedy
15:03:01 <gkellogg> present+ Gregg_Kellogg
15:03:03 <burn> scribenick: Charles_Engelke
15:03:11 <nage> present+ Nathan_George
15:03:34 <JoeAndrieu> JoeAndrieu has joined #vcwg
15:03:42 <burn> present+ Joe_Andrieu
15:03:43 <DavidC> DavidC has joined #vcwg
15:03:56 <Charles_Engelke> Agenda review and discussions. Anyone visiting? Not today.
15:04:01 <burn> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2017Oct/0005.html
15:04:33 <Charles_Engelke> Manu will not be here today, so we may not get far on some topics.
15:04:48 <burn> Topic: TPAC topic review & TPAC Planning
15:04:52 <stonematt> present+ Matt_Stone
15:05:10 <burn> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/161h0QO8QODtS04eyLQqc6errV7RamcbS-xOPJL6S0g0/edit#gid=0
15:05:56 <burn> present+ Richard_Varn
15:05:59 <varn> varn has joined #vcwg
15:06:27 <burn> present+ Christopher_Allen
15:06:51 <Charles_Engelke> Matt_Stone presented spreadsheet of TPAC topics. Created a schedule for Thursday and Friday going from 8:00 to 6:00 with lunch and two breaks.
15:06:52 <cwebber> present+ Chris_Webber
15:07:40 <Charles_Engelke> Items in the charter are prioritized for day one.
15:07:55 <Charles_Engelke> OpenID/SAML topic time zeroed out. No objections.
15:08:33 <ChristopherA> Not on this list is evidence & assessment
15:09:48 <Charles_Engelke> stonematt: Thursday afternoon overlaps with AC meeting, so we will lost some AC members from the WG meeting.
15:09:51 <varn> is anyone on our group an AC rep?
15:10:02 <Charles_Engelke> varn - I am
15:10:17 <burn> All WG chairs are invited to AC meetings
15:10:27 <liam> present+ Liam_Quin
15:10:45 <varn> present+ varn
15:11:10 <burn> present- varn
15:12:07 <Charles_Engelke> stonematt: we might shift around order of topics.
15:12:21 <ChristopherA> q+
15:12:24 <ChristopherA> q?
15:12:29 <dlongley> q+
15:12:35 <stonematt> q?
15:12:42 <Charles_Engelke> stonematt: we have an open time slot early on day two, but it's only half an hour.
15:12:45 <burn> ack ChristopherA
15:12:50 <ChristopherA> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/47
15:14:11 <Charles_Engelke> ChristopherA: want to make sure that there's time for different kinds of claims. People still don't understand what a verifiable claim is.
15:15:21 <burn> q+ to ask if the problem is terminology or that we don't actually understand it well enough ourselves
15:15:31 <stonematt> q?
15:15:34 <burn> ack dlongley
15:15:36 <nage> nage has joined #vcwg
15:15:37 <Charles_Engelke> ChristopherA: have had people thinking that a verifiable claim meant the contents were true rather than that the signature was valid.
15:17:40 <burn> ack burn
15:17:40 <Zakim> burn, you wanted to ask if the problem is terminology or that we don't actually understand it well enough ourselves
15:18:07 <dlongley> dlongley: We could move "subject is not holder" use case discussion after Joe's generic use case discussion and potentially put them together in the same 2 hour time block.
15:18:16 <ChristopherA> q+
15:18:20 <varn> we are only verifying who issued a claim, that the contents of the claim such as subject/earner, evidence used, data contained in claim have not been changed in any way not authorized by the issuer, that the person asserting the claim has the right to do so, and so on.  Have we not written this down in a way that explains that clearly enough?
15:18:22 <burn> ack ChristopherA
15:18:34 <Charles_Engelke> burn: is this a terminology issue, or an understanding issue?
15:18:40 <dlongley> burn: We have other scheduling concerns so we're really interested in order -- not specific time slots, so we'll take just the order suggestion there under advisement.
15:19:01 <TallTed> q+
15:19:12 <dlongley> What is verifiable is *authorship*.
15:19:15 <TallTed> "verifiable attribution"
15:19:24 <varn> we are not the ontology group determining what claims mean
15:20:08 <JoeAndrieu> we verify the integrity of the statement--that it is made by the author as stated, not the factuality or truthfulness of the statement
15:20:16 <burn> ack TallTed
15:20:19 <Charles_Engelke> ChristopherA: what is verifiable is authorship. We're attracting people who want us to move on to what is inside the claim - is it true?
15:20:55 <varn> Once we get the basics, then others can extend the work into primary meaning or applicability of the claim for a specific purpose
15:21:09 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to frame the extras as claims about claims
15:21:17 <varn> q+
15:21:41 <cwebber> q+
15:21:46 <burn> ack JoeAndrieu
15:21:46 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to frame the extras as claims about claims
15:22:06 <Charles_Engelke> TallTed: calling us "Verifiable Claims" is going to make this confusion continue, going beyond the actual scope. But WG name is already in place.
15:22:35 <MattLarson> MattLarson has joined #vcwg
15:22:42 <TallTed> TallTed: talking about Subject vs Holder is going well beyond the nominal scope of verifying that "a said b"
15:22:43 <burn> ack varn
15:22:47 <stonematt> q?
15:23:54 <JoeAndrieu> @varn exactly. claim about claims addresses a lot of "add-on" evaluation and assertions, e.g., evidence, negative claims, etc.
15:24:04 <TallTed> TallTed: much of the mailing list content, many agenda items for calls and for TPAC, are going well beyond "did a say this (perhaps, on date)?"
15:24:06 <burn> ack cwebber
15:24:10 <stonematt> q?
15:24:30 <Charles_Engelke> varn: claims about claims are much broader than scope
15:24:32 <stonematt> q+
15:24:33 <cwebber> http://www.mumble.net/~jar/articles/oo.html
15:24:42 <ChristopherA> I don't need to change name, I just want to clarify the definitions early on.
15:24:50 <dlongley> +1 to strong definitions
15:24:50 <ChristopherA> especially given the common confusion.
15:24:55 <TallTed> s/I don't need/... I don't need/
15:24:59 <stonematt> +1
15:25:08 <burn> ack stonematt
15:25:08 <Charles_Engelke> cwebber: lots of areas have seriously overloaded names (e.g. "object"). Should focus on strong definitions.
15:25:22 <dlongley> also related to: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/66
15:25:24 <burn> q+
15:25:27 <TallTed> q+
15:25:42 <varn> i agree claims about claims is complicated and deep and we are doing that.  but if someone wants to extend our work to do that, more power to them
15:25:59 <Charles_Engelke> stonematt: Have no interest in rebranding group. Stay in current scope. Work on data model.
15:25:59 <varn> we are not doing that I meant
15:26:36 <Charles_Engelke> stonematt: TPAC discussion topics on these definitions, clarifying scope.
15:26:51 <burn> ack burn
15:27:57 <burn> ack TallTed
15:27:58 <Charles_Engelke> burn: Regard concerns about discussion varying widely. We may go beyond what we define in the document, but that's a good thing for getting group alignment.
15:28:32 <JoeAndrieu> @varn Well, technically, the subject of a claim can be a "concept", which always seemed odd to me. But if using another claim as the subject lets us provide evidence, dispute, or make negative claims, then we have a forward looking resolution for all those who are looking for that capability.
15:28:57 <JoeAndrieu> s/that capability/those capabilities/
15:29:06 <ChristopherA> q+
15:29:23 <Charles_Engelke> TallTed: not advocating changing the group name. Nudge for a bit more consistency in stating what is in scope. Much of the discussion is getting deep into things outside of scope. So capture the use cases, note they need to be addressed, but make it clear that they aren't necessarily going to be addressed in WG.
15:29:36 <burn> ack ChristopherA
15:29:56 <JoeAndrieu> Yes. that's extremely cogent. The question we answer is "Did Joe say this?"
15:30:00 <DavidC> q+
15:30:02 <Charles_Engelke> ChristopherA: agrees should not change name, shares many of the same concerns.
15:30:48 <Charles_Engelke> ChristopherA: there are people with misconceptions, and we need to address those misconceptions strongly.
15:31:13 <stonematt> we may need a section of "VC's don't xyz..."
15:31:14 <dlongley> i don't think the "this" in "Did Joe say this" is *entirely* out of scope, there are some minimal, common parts of "this" that we want to define for interoperability.
15:31:20 <stonematt> q?
15:31:25 <burn> ack DavidC
15:31:31 <dlongley> and we should define those and say that's all that's in scope.
15:31:44 <stonematt> q?
15:31:44 <Charles_Engelke> ChristopherA: Misconceptions about scope are causing problems with people thinking what we're talking about is different from our actual discussions.
15:31:45 <burn> +1 Christopher, would love to see some PRs
15:31:48 <stonematt> q+
15:32:46 <burn> Note that I am about to close the queue on this topic for today
15:32:52 <dlongley> +1 to David Chadwick ... it is in scope for us to provide some *minimal* semantics about "this".
15:33:11 <Charles_Engelke> DavidC: claims are not meaningful without extra context around them.
15:33:17 <burn> ack stonematt
15:33:31 <JoeAndrieu> -1 to David. There are plenty of situations where the claim is valid independent of holder==subject
15:33:41 <dlongley> and meta data about the claim itself.
15:33:46 <JoeAndrieu> (a well worn debate between us)
15:33:56 <Charles_Engelke> stonematt: we're getting away from our agenda item, so should get back to that.
15:34:00 <burn> q?
15:34:23 <burn> Topic: Readiness for Privacy Group exposure
15:35:09 <burn> Link to an email from David on privacy: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2017Oct/0003.html
15:35:13 <Charles_Engelke> burn: Next topic - Readiness for Privacy Group exposure. Significant privacy concerns were raised about our group, even before the group was formed. Questions about whether document is ready for their review.
15:35:17 <dlehn> present+ David_Lehn
15:36:54 <stonematt> q?
15:36:54 <Charles_Engelke> David_Lehn: Have seen many questions and comments on privacy. Need to address those in the WG. Trying to turn the privacy document into HTML and post on GitHub.
15:37:08 <dlongley> s/David_Lehn/David_Chadwick/
15:37:14 <burn> Topic: Introduce Milestone 1.5
15:37:27 <burn> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/milestone/5
15:38:26 <Charles_Engelke> stonematt: On Milestone 1.5 - Formal Vocabulary. Dave Longley warned that we don't want to do that too early, because as soon as it's out there, people will start using it.
15:39:29 <Charles_Engelke> stonematt: the milestone is the formal publishing of the machine vocabulary to whichever systems we choose at that time.
15:39:34 <dlongley> well said
15:39:40 <burn> Topic: Data Model Spec current milestone issues
15:39:55 <burn> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/milestone/3
15:41:01 <TallTed> TallTed: (sorry for timeline issue in logs) "*minimal* semantics" == claims are (expressible) in RDF, i.e., {?s ?p ?o}.  Dealing with the URIs or literals in those positions (checking whether ?s is holder, etc.) is beyond (current) scope.
15:41:38 <Charles_Engelke> ? who is speaking now?
15:42:12 <stonematt> +1 on concern
15:42:20 <stonematt> q/
15:42:22 <stonematt> q?
15:42:27 <Charles_Engelke> liam: what language is the base language for translation
15:42:30 <stonematt> q+
15:42:41 <burn> ack stonemat
15:42:43 <dlongley> i18n support native in RDF (can express language)
15:43:14 <dlongley> q+
15:43:16 <liam> [and in XML for that matter but we need to be explicit about what's in our dm]
15:43:20 <burn> ack dlongley
15:43:32 <Charles_Engelke> stonematt: support localization and language is important. Can we just decide we need this, or do we need discussion?
15:44:09 <stonematt> q?
15:44:18 <Charles_Engelke> dlongley: if things are missing, we should enumerate them. Would be good to find out what issues people think still exist that aren't addressed by technology choices already made.
15:44:23 <stonematt> q?
15:44:25 <burn> Topic: Test Suite Progress
15:44:27 <stonematt> q+
15:44:34 <burn> ack stonematt
15:44:47 <dlongley> +1 to examples
15:44:53 <burn> yes, good point
15:44:59 <liam> +1 to example in other language
15:45:22 <liam> [this may also include Basic English, for accessibility purposes]
15:45:42 <Charles_Engelke> stonematt: thinks it would be good to put examples in other languages in docs to validate that it's correct. Request for volunteers with nature language other than English, especially other character sets.
15:47:26 <Charles_Engelke> cwebber: on update for test suite. This is number two priority for him for right now. Manu is working on this, there might be others from Digital Bazaar who might be helping. This is probably the worst month for him to work on this given other work.
15:47:51 <Charles_Engelke> burn: Any other volunteers? No offers.
15:48:03 <burn> Topic: Future Agenda Topics
15:48:33 <Charles_Engelke> burn: we have a few minutes available for other topic. Any requests?
15:49:03 <nage> q+
15:49:03 <varn> claimvelope?
15:49:09 <burn> ack nage
15:49:12 <varn> q+
15:50:17 <dlongley> +1 good for in person discussion.
15:50:23 <ChristopherA> q+
15:50:26 <burn> ack varn
15:50:42 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to suggest future use case topic
15:50:51 <dlongley> is "claimvelope" a "verifiable profile"?
15:50:55 <Charles_Engelke> nage: topic from Web of Trust regarding binding claims and identifiers. Many different approaches were brought up.
15:51:48 <ChristopherA> I would like to see the claimvelope discussion in CCG
15:52:06 <TallTed> +1 claimvelope metadata/labeling
15:52:06 <Charles_Engelke> varn: some people want their claims to public, others discoverable, others private. We need a wrapper - some kind of metadata describing things like privacy issues in claims. A properly structured "claimvelope" helps with that.
15:52:30 <stonematt> q?
15:52:36 <DavidC> > Richard- yes I am very interested in this
15:52:46 <burn> ack ChristopherA
15:52:57 <Charles_Engelke> burn: ChristopherA said he'd like to see this in the community group.
15:53:03 <dlongley> so i guess "claimvelope" is more like an advertisement for further discovery ... need to figure out a name for this.
15:53:31 <stonematt> dlongley: would you include this topic in at Terms of Use discussion?
15:53:54 <dlongley> stonematt: might be orthogonal, i don't really mind where it's discussed.
15:54:24 <stonematt> dlongley: are these sorts of topics addressed in something like  ORDL
15:54:29 <stonematt> q?
15:54:31 <burn> ack JoeAndrieu
15:54:31 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to suggest future use case topic
15:54:32 <varn> dlongley--yes, that would be one purpose of a claimvelope.  it could do other things to describe the payload and its terms of use.  like reverse clickwrap.
15:54:36 <stonematt> q+
15:54:38 <dlongley> stonematt: oh, i don't know about that.
15:54:54 <Charles_Engelke> ChristopherA: Need to make sure we have right people for the use cases.
15:55:43 <burn> ack stonematt
15:55:43 <stonematt> q?
15:55:44 <ChristopherA> (I also will not be able to make call next week)
15:56:57 <Charles_Engelke> stonematt: we have an unscheduled session on "time to live" and "terms of use" and "digital rights language". Where does this fit. It seems related to claimvelope. Are these new ideas that we have to solve?
15:57:38 <burn> for the minutes, joe andrieu wants time on the call in two weeks to discuss use cases again
15:58:07 <Charles_Engelke> JoeAndrieu: wants time on call in two weeks to discussion use cases.
15:58:15 <varn> having a set of data elements that are selectively described in the wrapper of the claim is what i am after
15:58:38 <burn> present+ David_Ezell
15:58:44 <burn> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:58:44 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2017/10/10-vcwg-minutes.html burn
15:58:47 <dezell> dezell has joined #vcwg
18:02:15 <Zakim> Zakim has left #vcwg
18:05:54 <DanC> DanC has joined #vcwg
18:22:34 <DanC> DanC has left #vcwg
21:38:44 <gkellogg> gkellogg has joined #vcwg