<manu> scribe: manu
stone: Meeting schedules update
<MattLarson> I can take it
<scribe> scribe: MattLarson
stonematt: No meeting Dec 26 or
Jan 2. Get back together 9th of January.
... Topic 7 is a discussion about use cases. It would be useful
to get back each week to discuss each of the domains to bring
use cases in line.
<stonematt> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19Ndqc5pLsTu2ZmP4Wy7OlMOmskQFHPh28sMjW3ugsww/edit#gid=0
stonematt: call to action on times and locations of this meeting
stomematt: Last week we suggested that Manu indicated that milestone 1 is done. I would like to take a moment to formally close milestone 1
stonematt: for example ensure
schema.org is updated
... Time to submit datamodel
<Zakim> manu, you wanted to request agenda item
stomematt: I would like to open the floor for discussion
manu: sounds good for closing
milestone 1 and opening milestone 2
... There are new tools for reviewing PRs that we would
activate. I cannot do it because I do not have admin privs. I
either need them or have someone do that.
stonematt: Open an action item for manu and liam to resolve this
<manu> ACTION: Liam to work with Manu to add pr-review tool to Github repos.
<trackbot> Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel.
<manu> trackbot, this is vcwg
<trackbot> Sorry, manu, I don't understand 'trackbot, this is vcwg'. Please refer to <http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/irc> for help.
<varn> Manu to send a request to liam to get those privileges you need to address the new tools in GitHub
stonematt: schema.org update, publish data model, and then submit to ping for review
<scribe> ACTION: schema.org update
<trackbot> Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel.
<scribe> ACTION: publish data model
<trackbot> Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel.
<tzviya> https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg
tzviya: I added some things on schema.org so I can help, but I do not have time nor enough information on what I am doing for VC
sorry I am having trouble hearing... can someone take over
<JoeAndrieu> I will matt
<JoeAndrieu> gkellogg: our work is a specific vocabulary. It's likely premature to propose changes to schema.org
<JoeAndrieu> varn: let's take that off our action item list
<JoeAndrieu> manu: check with Liam, but I recall that working drafts are auto-published. let's change the action for Liam to set up the autopublisher Echidna
<gkellogg> https://github.com/w3c/echidna
<JoeAndrieu> ACTION: Ask Liam to set up Echidna autopublishing tooling that W3C is currently using
<trackbot> Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel.
<JoeAndrieu> stonematt: Is there value in tagging this moment in the spec to say it represented Milestone 1 complete?
<JoeAndrieu> manu: thinking at W3C has changed over the years. Used to be specific milestone-focused, but that led to people reviewing out-of-date drafts
<JoeAndrieu> ... the move to Echidna is to enable continuous publishing
<JoeAndrieu> manu: I checked with Wendy Seltzer and the PING group. They are happy to do a review when we are ready? So, are we ready for a privacy review?
<JoeAndrieu> stonematt: chairs will review this week (privacy review readiness)
<stonematt> ACTION: chairs to submit current datamodel spec to PING
<trackbot> Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel.
<JoeAndrieu> varn: Do we have anyone primed to define Milestone 2 or is it a group discussion?
<JoeAndrieu> stonematt: group discussion. What is the next big chunk of work?
<JoeAndrieu> ... we've been discussing revocation/layers of trust
<JoeAndrieu> ... and terms of use & further privacy issues
<JoeAndrieu> ... We want to be able to articulate a clear objective so we can know when we are DONE with the milestone
<JoeAndrieu> ... So that's the discussion: what is the next deliverable?
<JoeAndrieu> DavidC: Subject is not holder, which leads into delegation
<JoeAndrieu> stonematt: is that terms of use?
<JoeAndrieu> DavidC: Terms of Use is very broad. Issuer could attach anything, which covers every type of verifiable credentials.
<varn> issuer terms of use needs to be distinguished from subject terms of use
<JoeAndrieu> DavidC: That's right
<Zakim> manu, you wanted to mention delegation/capabilities, revocation, terms of use...
<JoeAndrieu> DavidC: Terms of use is too broad to cover in one chunk. It's like a v3 X.509 extension, it's endless
<manu> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/101
<JoeAndrieu> manu: terms of use can be broad, but there is a PR.
<JoeAndrieu> manu: The contents of the terms of use property are up in the air, but there is a place holder in the data model. I took a stab at it with ODRL.
<JoeAndrieu> ... However, I agree with David that we want to avoid discussing ALL the different kinds of terms of use there might be, but rather provide a way for holder and issuer to express whatever may be appropriate.
<JoeAndrieu> ... Everything we have left in the spec can easily become a tar pit. Each can suck us deeper and deeper.
<JoeAndrieu> ... There are three things that I see
<JoeAndrieu> ... The first is delegation. How do you delegate the use of a credential to someone else.
<JoeAndrieu> ... e.g., to a Travel agency for booking travel on your behalf
<JoeAndrieu> ... this relates to object capabilities, underway in the CCG. Way to early to pull that in, however.
<JoeAndrieu> ... Terms of Use. Going into the details will be a big discussion, but maybe we can put a place holder in.
<JoeAndrieu> manu: then, status (formerly revocation) of claims
<manu> manu: The order should probably be - 1) revocation and status checking, 2) terms of use, 3) delegation / object capabilities...
<JoeAndrieu> stonematt: good with revocation, repudiation
<manu> JoeAndrieu: The deliverables we're talking about - writing a section? Writing a topic? What's the output?
<manu> MattStone: We're adding new sections to the spec
<manu> MattStone: The goal is to make these weekly/hourly meetings focused - overall data model spec - make progress, call it done, move on.
<manu> JoeAndrieu: Talking about delegation / object capabilities - could have overlap on terms of use... may be able to do revocation / status checking w/o that.
<manu> JoeAndrieu: I'm endorsing revocation / status checking as next milestone to work on.
<JoeAndrieu> thanks, Manu
<cwebber2> I agree that revocation and status checking for credentials doesn't need ocap
<JoeAndrieu> DavidC: I'm endorsing Terms of Use if it is an empty bucket.
<cwebber2> delegation is another thing ;)
<stonematt> +1 to DavidC re: terms of use are a bucket into which rules can be poured. :)
<manu> DavidC: Agree - if we're limiting terms of use to just "empty buckets" in data model - that maps nicely, extensible, etc. We do need to talk about when holder/subject is not the same... we need to decide what to do about that.
<JoeAndrieu> ... what's not on Manu's list is subject != holder
<JoeAndrieu> ... if the data model is assuming that the subject == holder
<JoeAndrieu> ... we need to address that
<manu> +1, we should talk about subject != holder first.
<JoeAndrieu> varn: I do see that as a different topic
<JoeAndrieu> ... e.g., the subject could be not a person
<JoeAndrieu> ... so obviously, the holder can't be the subject in those cases
<manu> manu: So, my revised list 1) subject != holder, 2) revocation / status checking, 3) terms of use, 4) delegation/ocap
<JoeAndrieu> ... part of that is a subset of delegation, some is not
<JoeAndrieu> +1 to manu's prioritization
<dlongley> +1
<Zakim> manu, you wanted to note that we need implementations to track...
<JoeAndrieu> manu: yes, that item should go first. subject != holder should go first
<JoeAndrieu> ... for that we need some use cases to review the flow
<JoeAndrieu> ... if we keep that discussion use case based, we can make progress on implications for the data model
<dlongley> +1 to grounding subject != holder in use cases and seeing if data model can handle them or discovering what's missing.
<JoeAndrieu> varn: you think we have enough time and effort to start that next week?
<JoeAndrieu> varn : terms of use, as described as a "bucket" might be simpler
<Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to talk about use cases
<dlongley> JoeAndrieu: We do have some use cases for subject != holder and they are in the document I'm going to review.
<stonematt> JoeAndrieu: we have use cases for subject != holder that we might reivew by end of meeting
<stonematt> ... we have several use cases from TPAC that we can focus on
<dlongley> JoeAndrieu: If we don't get to it by the end of the meeting can discuss on chairs call. We reviewed several use cases at TPAC, that presentation outlines a handful of use cases to focus on, not exhaustive but starting list.
<dlongley> Varn: Any deal with inanimate objects as the subject?
<stonematt> varn: do any deal with inanimate objects?
<dlongley> JoeAndrieu: Not sure, but good to add.
<JoeAndrieu> Thanks, fellow scribes
<JoeAndrieu> varn: we have a proposed milestone order.
<JoeAndrieu> ... any objections to adopting that? Subject != holder as first
<JoeAndrieu> DavidC: that's probably the hardest. not sure we are ready to tackle it.
<dlongley> +1 to avoiding cascading changes in future work
<JoeAndrieu> mattstone: that's actually why we should probably do it. It's impact might be higher.
<JoeAndrieu> ... I like going to it next
<JoeAndrieu> DavidC: I'm happy to discuss it, but thought we might be looking for a quick hit. Subject != holder probably isn't that.
<JoeAndrieu> "foolish consistency"
<JoeAndrieu> varn: Any objections to adopting that batting order for Milestone 2?
<JoeAndrieu> ... no objections
<JoeAndrieu> stone: This is a standing item for editors to speak up and ask for reviews.
<JoeAndrieu> manu: getting link...
<manu> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/101
<JoeAndrieu> ... last week I volunteered to do a PR for terms of use. I did so, with a quick, high level ODRL permissions and obligations way of doing it.
<stonematt> ACTION: chairs to recommend language to describe Milestone2 based on discussion above
<trackbot> Sorry, but no Tracker is associated with this channel.
<JoeAndrieu> ... if we pull it into the spec, it will let us have a better conversation with the permissions & obligations group
<JoeAndrieu> ... this language has been adopting by publishers (Internal Press Telecommunications Council)
<JoeAndrieu> ... PR says: here's how you express Terms as issuer, and here's how you express Terms as holder, and gives permissions & obligations vocabulary as an example.
<JoeAndrieu> ... we need use cases about what we want to focus on.
<JoeAndrieu> ... do not track me, do not correlate me, etc.
<JoeAndrieu> varn: you reference ODRL, but for terms of use you can use anything, correct?
<JoeAndrieu> manu: yes, we are pointing to a bucket, *and* we are giving some non-normative examples of what you could put in there
<JoeAndrieu> varn: so if your terms of use is "see my broker" is that part of delegation or part of terms of
<dlongley> JoeAndrieu: Richard you may have asked this question -- manu you mentioned the permissions and obligations group, I'm guessing they are behind ODRL, used interchangeably, unclear.
<dlongley> manu: Yes, they are.
<dlongley> JoeAndrieu: Do not track/do not correlate are horrible use cases but we'll get to that. :)
<Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to ask about showing this to PWG
<JoeAndrieu> thanks
<manu> +1 to sharing w/ Publishing WG!
<JoeAndrieu> tzviya: this is exactly what the publishing world would love to see: a way to express permissions. Can we share this?
<JoeAndrieu> varn: I think we only have a bucket at this point....
<JoeAndrieu> stonematt: maybe we should let it bake a little bit longer, then we can figure out what to share. We'd love your help with that.
<manu> Permissions and Obligations WG link: https://www.w3.org/2016/poe/wiki/Main_Page...
<JoeAndrieu> manu: Here's a link to the group.
<manu> The Open Digital Rights Language (ODRL) Information Model http://w3c.github.io/poe/model/
<JoeAndrieu> manu: I looked through the vocabulary. It's fairly complex. I struggled to find an example that would fit our needs. Some good stuff on policies and permissions and privacy... but it is very focused on publication of creative works, not necessarily information about yourself
<JoeAndrieu> ... strong +1 to what tzviya said: it'd be good to get groups involved. Publishers, Web of Things group, etc. maybe other working groups.
<JoeAndrieu> varn: next item: any progress on test suite?
<JoeAndrieu> manu: no new commits
<JoeAndrieu> manu: hitting the point in the group that we need new implementers.
<JoeAndrieu> ... this could be something the chairs pick up.
<JoeAndrieu> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kS9L9oPRqFC7WG3acym7_QalDaK5zrbKy_5-By5X664/edit?usp=sharing https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sUt7OPv5B_DWa4SQcOl16ZZqLg2URwNPmsEhCrisvxM/edit?usp=sharing
<ChristopherA> I'm trying from the CG side. Virtual Hackathon week of January 15th
<manu> JoeAndrieu: I'm suggesting these two items above to do use case evaluation...
<JoeAndrieu> thanks, Manu!
<JoeAndrieu> ;)
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/tooling/Echidna autopublishing tooling/ Succeeded: s/continuous release/continuous publishing/ Succeeded: s/Topic: Please add to these if there are any other locations or events// Succeeded: s/Topic: Data Model PRs// Succeeded: s/Publishig/Publishing/ Present: Charles_Engelke Chris_Webber Christopher_Allen Dave_Longley David_Lehn Gregg_Kellogg Manu_Sporny MattLarson Matt_Stone Nathan_George Tzviya_Siegman colleen_kennedy Benjamin_Young Found Scribe: manu Inferring ScribeNick: manu Found Scribe: MattLarson Inferring ScribeNick: MattLarson Scribes: manu, MattLarson ScribeNicks: manu, MattLarson 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: ask chairs liam publish schema.org 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]