VC WG Telco — Minutes
Date: 2021-08-25
See also the Agenda and the IRC Log
Attendees
Present: Brent Zundel, Charles Lehner, David Chadwick, Manu Sporny, Wayne Chang
Regrets:
Guests:
Chair: Brent Zundel
Scribe(s): David Chadwick
Content:
- 1. Agenda review
- 2. VCWG at TPAC
- 3. Next VCWG Charter
- 4. Review PRs
- 4.1. Making explicit the binding of the holder to a VC (pr vc-data-model#795)
- 4.2. removes mention of termsOfUse with verifiable presentations (pr vc-data-model#787)
- 4.3. Recode graph diagrams (pr vc-data-model#786)
- 4.4. Clarified subtitle of Data Model (pr vc-data-model#780)
- 4.5. Vocabulary definition changes (pr vc-data-model#771)
- 5. Issue Triage
- 5.1. [PROPOSAL] New specification document title: W3C Consensus-based Data Model Specification for Verifiable Credentials (issue vc-data-model#791)
- 5.2. Explicit reference should be added about binding the VC to the holder (issue vc-data-model#789)
- 5.3. [PROPOSAL] Spec needs to include a non-JSON/non-JSON-LD example VC binding e.g. JPEG EXIF/XMP (issue vc-data-model#796)
- 5.4. V1 specification doesn’t definitively state that the
credentialSubject.id
, if specified, is always the id of the Subject of the Credential (issue vc-data-model#792) - 5.5. [PRINCIPLED OBJECTION] The VC data model specification 1.0 is not implementable in the ways it appears to be intended based on the text of the current specification document (issue vc-data-model#797)
- 6. v1.1 issues
1. Agenda review
Wayne Chang: Any non-profit that wants expertise on VCs can engage with the chairs or the editors
2. VCWG at TPAC
Brent Zundel: https://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC/2021/GroupMeetings
Manu Sporny: We have the ACLU that would like to engage, should I get back to them and invite? ^^^
Manu Sporny: That’s the “Americal Civil Liberties Union”
Brent Zundel: We have nothing on the TPAC agenda yet
3. Next VCWG Charter
Brent Zundel: https://w3c.github.io/vc-wg-charter/
Brent Zundel: charter has been updated to take into account all the comments from the last meeting
… we are now in a position to share it more broadly
Manu Sporny: Other deliverables is not clear enough yet. The scope of each one is unclear
… we should add a paragraph describing each one
4. Review PRs
Brent Zundel: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pulls
4.1. Making explicit the binding of the holder to a VC (pr vc-data-model#795)
See github pull request #795.
Brent Zundel: this is not errata but is making normative changes
… so it should be put in 2.0
Manu Sporny: I talked to Steven and he agrees that this PR should be removed and an issue raised to bring it into v2.0
… Steven has said he will close the PR after he has added this issue for v2.0
Brent Zundel: I am adding the defer v2.0 label
… now I would like to focus on v1.1 PRs
4.2. removes mention of termsOfUse with verifiable presentations (pr vc-data-model#787)
See github pull request #787.
Brent Zundel: summarised that ToU is said to be in presentations but this is not described properly. ie. there is a bug in the spec
Manu Sporny: approves the merge of this PR and it is after the 14 day review
4.3. Recode graph diagrams (pr vc-data-model#786)
See github pull request #786.
Manu Sporny: unfortunately the next time we update the diagrams it will overwrite the good changes the chaals did
… there is not a good solution to this because the diagrams are in google.docs but it does not support his changes
Manu Sporny: +1 to merge and face consequences
Manu Sporny: either it will be difficult to update the diagrams or difficult for some people to read them.
Brent Zundel: is anyone opposed to merging this now?
David Chadwick: There was no opposition so Manu performed the merge
4.4. Clarified subtitle of Data Model (pr vc-data-model#780)
See github pull request #780.
Brent Zundel: the current subtitle is not correct. but we dont have the perfect subtitle yet
Manu Sporny: I agree so we cannot merge yet
4.5. Vocabulary definition changes (pr vc-data-model#771)
See github pull request #771.
Brent Zundel: is this a breaking change or not? Should it be 1.1 or 1.2
Manu Sporny: non of the files that are touched are normative. Its only descriptive text. But if anyone was doing advanced graph processing then everything would break
… whilst it is safe to make the change now I would prefer to wait for 2.0 just in case someone is doing this advanced RDF processing
… this change does not affect implementors using JSON or JSON-LD processing, but only those doing graph processing
5. Issue Triage
David Chadwick: It was agreed to change the status of this to Defer to 2.0
5.1. [PROPOSAL] New specification document title: W3C Consensus-based Data Model Specification for Verifiable Credentials (issue vc-data-model#791)
See github issue #791.
Brent Zundel: this is not a 1.1 or 1.2 issue, we should defer to v2.0
Manu Sporny: no W3C spec is titled consensus based, so it will never be accepted
Brent Zundel: Yeah, since the W3C process is consensus-based, this addition to the title would need to be added to all W3C specs
… and we don’t have enough folks here to make the decision anyway
Manu Sporny: I’m fine with us re-visiting this on a v2.0 timeframe.
David Chadwick: all standards are consensus based to the best of my knowledge
5.2. Explicit reference should be added about binding the VC to the holder (issue vc-data-model#789)
See github issue #789.
Manu Sporny: +1 to defer v2
Brent Zundel: this should be defer to v2.0
David Chadwick: +1
5.3. [PROPOSAL] Spec needs to include a non-JSON/non-JSON-LD example VC binding e.g. JPEG EXIF/XMP (issue vc-data-model#796)
See github issue #796.
Manu Sporny: Suggest deferring to v2.0
Brent Zundel: whilst no-one objects to this principle, this is out of scope of our current charter
5.4. V1 specification doesn’t definitively state that the credentialSubject.id
, if specified, is always the id of the Subject of the Credential (issue vc-data-model#792)
See github issue #792.
Manu Sporny: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/792#issuecomment-900283929
Brent Zundel: this editorial change could fit into v1.1
David Chadwick: Part of the issue is bearer VC – understanding who it’s attached to – nobody, everybody, etc.
… I don’t think it covers the “no holder” use case… we should write about “if not specified”.
Brent Zundel: Let’s do a separate issue for that
Manu Sporny: yes, please.
5.5. [PRINCIPLED OBJECTION] The VC data model specification 1.0 is not implementable in the ways it appears to be intended based on the text of the current specification document (issue vc-data-model#797)
See github issue #797.
Brent Zundel: no PR has been raised to address this issue, so no resolution is currently available
Manu Sporny: we have to record this objection unless the author takes it back.
Brent Zundel: the issue must remain open until some action is taken
6. v1.1 issues
Brent Zundel: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Av1.1+sort%3Aupdated-asc
6.1. Examples issuanceDate
is invalid (issue vc-data-model#736)
See github issue #736.
Brent Zundel: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/736
Manu Sporny: this has been addressed by 737 so it should be closed now
6.2. Bug in the credential vocabulary specification (issue vc-data-model#770)
See github issue #770.
Brent Zundel: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/770
Manu Sporny: +1 to defer v2
Brent Zundel: label this defer to v2.0
6.3. Some example credential types not defined in example context (issue vc-data-model#750)
See github issue #750.
Brent Zundel: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/750
Brent Zundel: there is a PR that has been merged to cover this
Manu Sporny: DavidC: We should take the same approach for all of them.
Manu Sporny: we should have put the word example in front of all these and added them to the example @context
Brent Zundel: is anyone opposed to closing this particular issue?
David Chadwick: none
Brent Zundel: i will email everyone with proposed meeting times