<burn> scribenick: DavidC
<stonematt> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2017Nov/0014.html
look at resolutions and action items from TPAC
Noone joining for the first time today
<burn> First day: https://www.w3.org/2017/11/09-vcwg-minutes.html#ActionSummary
First resolution: Change "Inspector-Verifier" to "Verifier" in the specification.
Suspect that this has not been done yet.
Joe thinks it has already been done
<dlongley> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/commit/f70dbc488a882927f4846f1215a6406ce0207905
Dave L confirms it has been done
Second Resolution: Agree to change "Verifiable Claim" to just "Claim", try it out in the spec and communities, and come back in a few months to decide how the change went.
ack
<burn> ACTION: Editors to change "Verifiable Claim" to just "Verifiable Credential"
<trackbot> Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel.
This resolution was overtaken later in the meeting, when we agreed to talk about verifiable credentials
Resolution 3: Shift spec to focus on "verifiable credentials" vs. "verifiable claims" even though it is imperfect - work on the definition. Debate "auditable claims" or "signed claims" over the next few weeks and search/replace if that becomes the final decision.
<cwebber2> I am not :)
<reto> I am not happy
If anyone is still interested in pursuing a claim other than verifiable credentials they should submit an issue or pull request for this
<scribe> ACTION: burn's editorial comment is what we should add to the spec [NEW] ACTION: chairs to add/update text on group home page explaining the change of term from verifiable claims to verifiable credentials [NEW] ACTION: chairs to schedule discussing publishing primer as a WG Note
<trackbot> Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel.
None of these three actions have been done yet
<burn> Day two: https://www.w3.org/2017/11/10-vcwg-minutes.html#ActionSummary
Day two just one resolution: Change "revocation" to "foobarXYZ" in spec.... create a "FooBarXYZ2017" non-normative spec to explore revocation, status codes, explanations, and other things of that nature.
JoeAndrieu added the clarification that there is a difference between revocation because the key has been lost/stolen and the credential has been lost/stolen. Revocation is the correct term for the last one
There is also the issue about whether the underlying claim is still valid even if the credential is not
<stonematt> +1 on that direction
One is about the business claim (the former) the other about the cryptography (the latter)
<nage> +1 to distinguishing between key rotation/revocation and claim revocation
<ChristopherA_> +1 that we need to be careful with two types, including possibly new verbs
Is there a volunteer to draft initial text on this complex issue
<ChristopherA_> I'm thinking about writing the dissent.
Stonematt will volunteer for this
<ChristopherA_> as I think we should be explicit with two different words. Revocation of keys associated with a credential, repudiation of a claim.
<ChristopherA_> @stonematt, sure
<burn> ACTION: chairs to find volunteer to draft initial revocation text
<trackbot> Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel.
<ChristopherA_> (and I'm willing to help @stonematt
ChristopherA will help stonematt
<burn> ACTION: manu to create PR to correct the use of "credential" v "verifiable credential" to be rigorous
<trackbot> Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel.
Action from TPAC: ACTION: nage to create issue/pr describing how we can address identity verification via updating the vocabulary in the credential itself
<trackbot> Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel.
nage: Sorry I have not had time to do this yet
Next ACTION: ACTION: nage to propose description about crypto guarantees around identifiers being used to make url useful
Nage: this is tied somewhat into the revocation discussion
The next action is Nathan and Manu to work together on how to do content addressed JSON-LD contexts.
This has not been done yet
<gkellogg> https://github.com/json-ld/json-ld.org/issues/547
<burn> ACTION: Nathan will contact Manu about how to do content addressed JSON-LD contexts
<trackbot> Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel.
Next action PR for how crypto hooks are expressed in sig block
<cwebber2> gkellogg, @integrity looks good
Nage: this action is for me
<cwebber2> here is how we're doing things in activitystreams currently to version things for now https://github.com/w3c-dvcg/ld-signatures/issues/9#issuecomment-326720082
<ChristopherA_> I just want to make sure that it also works with Brand's Blinding (aka uProve), but I think it is very close to CL.
<burn> DavidC: had discussion with Jan C about how his work might fit into ours. He said it should just work with our exiting docs.
ChristopherA: Brands scheme sold to Microsoft now marketed as UProve
<nage> +1 to helping the data model stay flexible (someone will probably invent something even better going forward)
<dlongley> +1 for not mandating a particular approach but demonstrating how to make them work
ChristopherA: need to make sure our model can accomodate this as well
<burn> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pulls
burn: I dont think there are any blocking pull requests now
dlongley: would be helpful if people could review these and if they like them, click on approve
<burn> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Aprivacy
JoeAndrieu: terms of use is also
related to revocation issue
... still a lot of conversation to be had on this
Burn: should we make progress on revocation first?
<nage> I have strong feelings that the terms of use are part of the data in the credential itself, rather than necessary "claimvelope" data (revocation is different, as it is required for validation)
JoeAndrieu: Yes preferrable
Nage: agrees that revocation should be progressed first
Varn: We have to deal with issues concerning terms of use on the payload and the payload itself
<dlongley> also, terms of use may be coming from the issuer and/or the holder
<burn> Issue 42: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/42
<trackbot> Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel.
Issue 42 - integration with web components
<trackbot> Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel.
<Zakim> burn, you wanted to ask if this is proposing a particular solution rather than expressing an issue
<ChristopherA_> +1 if it is described as a hint
<ChristopherA_> display hints?
dlongley: how to display a VC is
of concern to certain user groups, such as badges, but it is
not a critical issue
... this should be a hint on how you can handle display, and
here is an example
... if you are interested then help us work on this outside the
WG
<dlongley> and Kim HD
<dlongley> interested parties include at least Nate Otto, Matt Stone, Kim Hamilton Duffy
<burn> dlongley, can you please @ them in the issue?
ChristopherA: we need to be clear what are hints, and what security issues there might be in this
<burn> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/41
Do not correlate flag
<ChristopherA_> +1 I agree this is part of terms of use, thus is part of business of claims discussion
JoeAndrieu: this is part of the Terms of Use, so should be subsumed in it
<varn> it might be useful to distinguish terms of use that are enforced by the data standard and follow on specs versus legal terms of use that are enforceable by civil and or criminal procedures
<ChristopherA_> The claimvelope can enforce non-correlation, but inside the claims can also be a terms of us "please don't try to correlate"
<varn> in other words, what will the technology do to support or enforce terms versus simply require you to read and agree as evidence of assent for later enforcement
We do not have any updates on progress of this topic at this time
<burn> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/milestone/3
<burn> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/66
Issue "Verifiable Claim" as a concept without a direct data model mapping
<trackbot> Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel.
We believe this topic is now convered by the change of terminology to verifiable credentials
<ChristopherA_> ;-)
<ChristopherA_> Ciao!
The meeting is now closed
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/Test Suite progress/Topic: Test Suite Progress/ Present: Benjamin_Young Chris_Webber Christopher_Allen Dan_Burnett Dave_Longley David_Lehn Gregg_Kellogg Joe_Andrieu Liam_Quin Matt_Stone Nathan_George Reto_Gmür Richard_Varn Ted_Thibodeau Found ScribeNick: DavidC Inferring Scribes: DavidC Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2017Nov/0014.html WARNING: No date found! Assuming today. (Hint: Specify the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.) Or specify the date like this: <dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002 People with action items: about add burn chairs comment contact editorial editors how is manu nathan s should we what will WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option. 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]