<burn> scribenick: Charles_Engelke

Agenda review and discussions. Anyone visiting? Not today.

<burn> Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2017Oct/0005.html

Manu will not be here today, so we may not get far on some topics.

TPAC topic review & TPAC Planning

<burn> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/161h0QO8QODtS04eyLQqc6errV7RamcbS-xOPJL6S0g0/edit#gid=0

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.

Items in the charter are prioritized for day one.

OpenID/SAML topic time zeroed out. No objections.

<ChristopherA> Not on this list is evidence & assessment

stonematt: Thursday afternoon overlaps with AC meeting, so we will lost some AC members from the WG meeting.

<varn> is anyone on our group an AC rep?

varn - I am

<burn> All WG chairs are invited to AC meetings

stonematt: we might shift around order of topics.
... we have an open time slot early on day two, but it's only half an hour.

<ChristopherA> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/47

ChristopherA: want to make sure that there's time for different kinds of claims. People still don't understand what a verifiable claim is.
... have had people thinking that a verifiable claim meant the contents were true rather than that the signature was valid.

<Zakim> burn, you wanted to ask if the problem is terminology or that we don't actually understand it well enough ourselves

<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.

<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?

burn: is this a terminology issue, or an understanding issue?

<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.

<dlongley> What is verifiable is *authorship*.

<TallTed> "verifiable attribution"

<varn> we are not the ontology group determining what claims mean

<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

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?

<varn> Once we get the basics, then others can extend the work into primary meaning or applicability of the claim for a specific purpose

<Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to frame the extras as claims about claims

TallTed: calling us "Verifiable Claims" is going to make this confusion continue, going beyond the actual scope. But WG name is already in place.

<TallTed> TallTed: talking about Subject vs Holder is going well beyond the nominal scope of verifying that "a said b"

<JoeAndrieu> @varn exactly. claim about claims addresses a lot of "add-on" evaluation and assertions, e.g., evidence, negative claims, etc.

<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)?"

varn: claims about claims are much broader than scope

<cwebber> http://www.mumble.net/~jar/articles/oo.html

<ChristopherA> ... I don't need to change name, I just want to clarify the definitions early on.

<dlongley> +1 to strong definitions

<ChristopherA> especially given the common confusion.

<stonematt> +1

cwebber: lots of areas have seriously overloaded names (e.g. "object"). Should focus on strong definitions.

<dlongley> also related to: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/66

<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

stonematt: Have no interest in rebranding group. Stay in current scope. Work on data model.

<varn> we are not doing that I meant

stonematt: TPAC discussion topics on these definitions, clarifying scope.

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.

<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 those capabilities.

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.

<JoeAndrieu> Yes. that's extremely cogent. The question we answer is "Did Joe say this?"

ChristopherA: agrees should not change name, shares many of the same concerns.
... there are people with misconceptions, and we need to address those misconceptions strongly.

<stonematt> we may need a section of "VC's don't xyz..."

<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.

<dlongley> and we should define those and say that's all that's in scope.

ChristopherA: Misconceptions about scope are causing problems with people thinking what we're talking about is different from our actual discussions.

<burn> +1 Christopher, would love to see some PRs

<burn> Note that I am about to close the queue on this topic for today

<dlongley> +1 to David Chadwick ... it is in scope for us to provide some *minimal* semantics about "this".

DavidC: claims are not meaningful without extra context around them.

<JoeAndrieu> -1 to David. There are plenty of situations where the claim is valid independent of holder==subject

<dlongley> and meta data about the claim itself.

<JoeAndrieu> (a well worn debate between us)

stonematt: we're getting away from our agenda item, so should get back to that.

Readiness for Privacy Group exposure

<burn> Link to an email from David on privacy: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2017Oct/0003.html

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.

David_Chadwick: 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.

Introduce Milestone 1.5

<burn> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/milestone/5

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.
... the milestone is the formal publishing of the machine vocabulary to whichever systems we choose at that time.

<dlongley> well said

Data Model Spec current milestone issues

<burn> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/milestone/3

<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.

? who is speaking now?

<stonematt> +1 on concern

<stonematt> q/

liam: what language is the base language for translation

<dlongley> i18n support native in RDF (can express language)

<liam> [and in XML for that matter but we need to be explicit about what's in our dm]

stonematt: support localization and language is important. Can we just decide we need this, or do we need discussion?

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.

Test Suite Progress

<dlongley> +1 to examples

<burn> yes, good point

<liam> +1 to example in other language

<liam> [this may also include Basic English, for accessibility purposes]

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.

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.

burn: Any other volunteers? No offers.

Future Agenda Topics

burn: we have a few minutes available for other topic. Any requests?

<varn> claimvelope?

<dlongley> +1 good for in person discussion.

<dlongley> is "claimvelope" a "verifiable profile"?

nage: topic from Web of Trust regarding binding claims and identifiers. Many different approaches were brought up.

<ChristopherA> I would like to see the claimvelope discussion in CCG

<TallTed> +1 claimvelope metadata/labeling

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.

<DavidC> > Richard- yes I am very interested in this

burn: ChristopherA said he'd like to see this in the community group.

<dlongley> so i guess "claimvelope" is more like an advertisement for further discovery ... need to figure out a name for this.

<stonematt> dlongley: would you include this topic in at Terms of Use discussion?

<dlongley> stonematt: might be orthogonal, i don't really mind where it's discussed.

<stonematt> dlongley: are these sorts of topics addressed in something like ORDL

<Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to suggest future use case topic

<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.

<dlongley> stonematt: oh, i don't know about that.

ChristopherA: Need to make sure we have right people for the use cases.

<ChristopherA> (I also will not be able to make call next week)

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?

<burn> for the minutes, joe andrieu wants time on the call in two weeks to discuss use cases again

JoeAndrieu: wants time on call in two weeks to discussion use cases.

<varn> having a set of data elements that are selectively described in the wrapper of the claim is what i am after

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/I don't need/... I don't need/
Succeeded: s/that capability/those capabilities/
Succeeded: s/David_Lehn/David_Chadwick/
Present: Charles_Engelke Chris_Webber Christopher_Allen Colleen_Kennedy Dan_Burnett Dave_Longley David_Chadwick Gregg_Kellogg Joe_Andrieu Kim_Hamilton_Duffy Liam_Quin Matt_Stone Nathan_George Richard_Varn Ted_Thibodeau David_Lehn David_Ezell
Found ScribeNick: Charles_Engelke
Inferring Scribes: Charles_Engelke
Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2017Oct/0005.html
Got date from IRC log name: 10 Oct 2017
Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2017/10/10-vcwg-minutes.html
People with action items: 

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