<scribe> scribe: Gregg_Kellogg

<scribe> scribenick: gkellogg

Agenda review, Introductions, Re-introductions

burn: Next week, a number of people will be at Rebooting Web of Trust.

next week

burn: who can do a call next week?

I can

<dlongley> i can probably do a call

<tzviya> I'm availalable next week

<TallTed> +1

<DavidC> I am available next week

burn: I’ll send an email after the call to say if we’re having a call next week.

F2F

burn: F2F is the first friday in April. It turns out that there’s an opportunity to rent a room in the IIW space on Friday for $2000. Alternatively, ETS has offered to use space in their SF office for free.

<manu> Digital Bazaar can contribute $500

burn: We haven’t had sponsors come forward to help pay for the space. If we don’t get enough comittments, we’ll be meeting in San Francisco.

varn: ETS will either contribute $500, or the room (either/or)

burn: We’re down to the wire without a sponsor. As convenient as it would be to meet in the same location, that won’t happen for free.

<manu> Thanks to ETS for providing the space! :)

burn: We are meeting in San Francisco on Friday for the F2F, and I’ll put together the meeting description.

Datamodel issue review

<burn> manu's PR: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/121

<manu> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/55

manu: We’re having a discussion around mulitple subjects in a single credential, evolving to those in a profile.
... THe language previously said a credential is about a single subject, but the data model supports more, and the PR supports this.
... We can either close it if we don’t want to go there, or do the PR.

DavidC: I find manu’s wording a bit vague (typically).

manu: I’ll update the PR to reflect.

<burn> List: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues

burn: We have 38 open issues. There’s no assignments next to anyone, other than #93.
... This has been outstanding for a while to have volunteers focused on these.
... What I’m looking for is not that you have the answer, but that you’re interested and understand it enough that you can push people to come to a resolution.
... Starting with #120. Any volunteers?

DavidC: In the last couple of weeks, I’ve raised issues about issues. I didn’t appriciate that the process was to assign yourself to an issue.

burn: You may be able to assign yourself when looking at the issues.
... This requires administrative privilages, apparently. I’ll be doing it during the call.

manu: It’s because DavidC isn’t in the W3C organization, which you need to be in to get these privilages. But if you’re in, you can assign someone outside of it.

DavidC: I opened #120 because I found that not having IDs be referencable caused a problem.
... I’m happy to be responsible for #120.

burn: #119, claims and their signatures

manu: I can take that one. We may need a new section in the spec on how to do this.

burn: #118 Data Model in Context of Keys, Signatures & Countersignatures

JoeAndrieu: It’s a confusion about what the semantics of signing are. If they’re different based on different ways, how do we do it.
... We haven’t unpacked the semantics of different paths.
... I’ll take it on.

#117 [admin] Add PR Preview | Diff links

burn: This is editorial and useful, I’m going to assign liam to do this.
... #115 VC Identity owner impersonation

manu: There is a thumbs up at the bottom, so in theory, we can close this. I’ll take it and can probably close it out.

JoeAndrieu: Should there be spec text about such attack vectors?

manu: We should mention something in the security section.

<JoeAndrieu> I am jandrieu

#112 Is Verifiable Credentials sufficiently different from Verifiable Claims?

burn: Is “verifiable credentials” sufficiently different from “verifiable claims”?

agropper: I can take this one for monitoring.

#111 Dispute Resolution

burn: DavidC opened this one and Matt replied, but it hasn’t gone any where

DavidC: this was raised in the CG by people working on badges.

<agropper> i'm agropper on github

DavidC: I added text to the life-cycle document, but it pointed out something missing in the Data Model.

varn: Are you asking whether or not we want to add a label to say it’s under dispute, or a process on how to deal with it?

DavidC: I think the issue is in the process, but it could be put into the data model. Where the holder is the subject, the holder could add something to the profile to dispute.

varn: I think it’s more open, as sometimes people may be using it for different purposes.

#110 Trust Model

<liam> [if you can't assign yourself to issues once i've added you to the team, let me know, and remind me which issue :) ]

<drummond> +1 to pulling the trust model into one section

DavidC: This says that the current trust model is dispursed throughout the document, and it would be nice to pull together into a single section.

burn: I think this is editorial. Manu, can I assign this to you? If it needs a bigger discussion, unassign yourself.

manu: sure, I’ll try to put together a PR with David’s text.

#109 How to know who specified the Terms of Use

DavidC: I think we want to punt this to a different document, rather than to muddy the data model.

manu: I think we want to say there’s a part of the document that talks about ToU without saying how you do it.

DavidC: Different if issuer or holder do it.

burn: I think it needs a PR now, as there’s no dispute.

DavidC: I’ll do more work on this and try a PR after there is feedback.

#108 Typo in Example 6

burn: This editorial, and I’ll take it.

#107 Profiles

DavidC: THis is a big topic, there are going to be quite a lot of editorials around profiles.
... Some of these issues overlap.

JoeAndrieu: I think we need to update the definition of Profile, as there are open questions.

manu: I think #106 is the lynch-pin that this hangs on. I suggest we do a PR for #106 and argue there, and hopefully, the other issues fall out there.

<JoeAndrieu> +1 for resolving 106

manu: That means David needs to do a PR for #106, so we shouldn’t be too picky about it and do followup PRs.

<varn> Dan--i am signed into github now rvarn--have no assign button i can find

DavidC: I need some permissions to do this.

david: I assigned you to #106 and #107.

burn: out of time for the rest of this today, but this helps quite a bit.
... Each week, we’ll have about 5 minutes to assign more topics.

Status and plan for Use Case document

burn: I asked Joe if he could give us a status on the UC document, and what the plan is to move this to the next step.

JoeAndrieu: Matt and i spent some time yesterday going through a full-scope rewrite of the UC document. There are a few sections missing (gap analysis, privacy resks, …) leading with focal use cases, some way to wrangle the huge number of use cases we’ve been discussing since TPAC.
... We also want to focus attention on a handfull of use cases we can unpack to illustrate specific requirements.
... We want to focus on an issue where someone’s name has changed.
... We came up with a structure on how to put that in the doc.
... I’m hoping we can see about getting something from the retail world in there.
... For example someone with a PADI diving certificate.
... There’s tzviya’s library use case. Medical might be a good one, if not too complex.
... Matt and I will be driving this weekly. It brought up some questions about the Data Model, which is great.

stone: There’s a disire to have the focal use cases be a fairly short list (3-10). We want to get the scope down so we’re being representative but not exhaustive.
... There’s some that are simple, and others that are more complex.

DavidC: we had an issue to remove “verifiable claims”, and it’s mostly done. The UC document still needs to be updated. Perhaps that accounts for confusion we’ve seen.

JoeAndrieu: we’re remiss on that. I’d like to get a PR with language changes and place-holders by the end of March.
... It’s leading people astray to not have this updated.

<tzviya> I can help with use cases doc if you are seeking volunteers

burn: that’s also right before the F2F

Domain Discussion of the Week (Use Cases)

JoeAndrieu: We might have a chat about whether or not the “domain of the week” is something we should keep doing. It was there to work through the spreadsheet, but it proved to not be too useful.
... We could still use this time to pick a topic.

burn: If it would be productive to just have a time to discuss use cases, we could do that, otherwise, we could schedule discussions.

JoeAndrieu: I sometimes felt rushed, but I’m not sure the rest of the group found it useful.

manu: I think domain discussion is a good thing to do. WG’s often fail to cycle back to their use cases and forget about them. Tying work back to the use cases is great.
... I wonder if we’re seeing experimental deployments that speak to what we’re doing.
... (enumerates different initiatives)

<JoeAndrieu> +1 for domain discussion augmented by deployments aka "Evidence of Applicability"

manu: A counter-example would be digital coupons, which people talk about, but no one is actually doing it.

<tzviya> +1 to tying back to use cases and implementations

manu: We could prioritize use cases that people are actually using.

<drummond> +1 to supporting current implementers first

JoeAndrieu: I like that a lot; it’s a great opportunity to identify such implementations.

stone: I thought yesterday’s discussion on use cases was useful. Looking at an example JSON-LD document was very useful.

<burn> agree that end of March seems long, but better that than no date target!

stone: End of March feels like a long time out, maybe we can get something out sooner with incremental changes after.

JoeAndrieu: It’s great having Matt’s help to move these things forward.

<stonematt> thanks all!

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)

Present: Adrian_Gropper Benjamin_Young Chris_Webber Dan_Burnett Dave_Longley David_Chadwick Drummond_Reed Gregg_Kellogg Joe_Andrieu Liam_Quin Manu_Sporny Matt_Stone Nathan_George Richard_Varn Ted_Thibodeau Tzviya_Siegman
Found Scribe: Gregg_Kellogg
Found ScribeNick: gkellogg
Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2018Feb/0017.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: 

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.)