<scribe> scribe: cwebber
burn: so the agenda today is pretty much like what we've had, we'll review action items, assign orders, we'll also do a review item and look at PRs, then look at least recently updated issues. Any questions/suggestions/modifications for the agenda?
<burn> https://goo.gl/V4XTBT
burn: so that's the link to the
list of action items, and there's only one item on that list
that's open and that's for the chairs to schedule a time
whether VCs will do delegation. That was requested before, it's
a big topic, it keeps coming up. We will schedule time, not
this week, but probably next week or week after
... any comments or questions about that before I move
on?
... we do seem to have someone here whose name I don't
recognize... gregory Natran
gregory: I had a little bit of
trouble visualizing the topic
... my name is Gregory Natran, I work for a small consultancy
company in Ottowa Canada, my background is in information
science, my latest work around VCs is taking the basic concepts
that have been applied to individuals and seeing how we can
extend that into the public world, verify a corporate claim
that it has a business license, can sell liquor, etc
burn: thanks very much, welcome
to the group
... I'm one of the chairs, I think stonematt has joined us?
boscolo: chris Boscolo from xenolabs as well
ortiz: Alex Ortiz from xenolabs
<AlexZNO> ZNO Labs :)
AlexZNO: I have a prearranged obligation so I will have to drop off
burn: is stonematt online yet?
stonematt: hello
burn: last action item is to schedule delegation for VCs, next item is to assign owners to unasigned issues
<burn> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+no%3Aassignee
burn: just catching up on the
chat... we'll have a conversation after this item with
liam
... dropped a link in irc of unassigned issues
... so the one left unassigned is issue 204, new one from Chris
Webber, delegated authorization and vc distribution
<Zakim> manu, you wanted to note defer/icebox
manu: wasn't necessarily talking
about this one, though cwebber should probably take that
one
... I changed a few items, because some tags disappeared
... I had a couple examples where people asked me what the
icebox status meant, so I moved those to deferred
... we can add it back I'm just letting you know
<stonematt> +1 on defer
burn: Chris has just said he's ok
with taking 204
... before we go onto the next item I'd like to mention what
Liam put in the chat
liam: can you hear me?
burn: yes
liam: I am in fact leaving the W3C as the end of this month, this Friday will be my last day... I'm sorry for that, because I've enjoyed working with this group particularly
<manu> We've enjoyed working with you as well, Liam!
<manu> Sorry to hear you're going... :(
<tzviya> we'll miss you, liam
liam: I'm not sure who's being put on to replace me, but secondly if you've got admin items I'll try to do them this week, if you have any items contact me sooner than later
<manu> +1
burn: thank you liam, we will definitely miss you
<dlongley> +1
cwebber2: I'll miss you a lot too liam
<stonematt> +1 to Liam and thank you liam !
burn: you've been very helpful to this group in many ways that people in this group may not even know
manu: I just wanted to +1 that...
Liam, thanks so much for tirelessly fighting for us in the
backchannels. I don't think many have known how much a strong
proponent Liam has been
... best of luck and keep in touch
dezell: it's a surprise to me, I think I can claim to know you longer than nearly anyone else
liam: you're the second, I knew Allen Brown first!
burn: thanks... we look forward to hearing where your future career travel takes you
liam: thank you, so do I
burn: last week we finally got
all the email addresses correct, sent out a request for prelim
review of the datamodel spec. Reviews went out to the
accessibility group, internationalization group, odrl, privacy,
credentials community group, and the web commerce interest
group
... we've heard back from Ian Jacobs, issue 206(???)
<tzviya> I am doing the Accessibility Review for APA
<burn> odrl: https://github.com/w3c/odrl/issues/4
<manu> yay, thanks tzviya!
burn: we just got back from the
ODRL group that they'll look at it, they've marked it
themselves as an issue to review
... that's good, we're getting comments, and tzviya just said
she's doing accessibility review, so yay on that as well
manu: Allen, you asked when the appropriate time to review the spec would be, and now would be it!
<Allen> Will do!
<manu> Thanks, Allen!
<burn> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pulls
burn: at this point we'll move on
to the next topic, reviewing PRs for the data model spec.
interestingly DavidC had asked that we get to this as fast as
possible because he could only be here for the first half of
the call.. but I don't see DavidC on the call?
... ok, then we'll go through these as fast as we can, I hope
DavidC can join us at somepoint on this call
<Zakim> manu, you wanted to go through PRs.
burn: um... manu, go ahead
<manu> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pulls
manu: yes, was just going to go down them and give a quick update to folks. Should I have a conversation on each one Dan, or do you want to just do a summary?
burn: goal is to keep moving, so I just want as much discussion to move if they're stuck
manu: bitcoin DID method happened last week, they generated some VCs last week which made me realize we don't have a complete VC context that's up to date, so I hacked something together so they could make progress. Greg took that and added context etc
<manu> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/205
manu: that's PR 205, I've done a
high level review, it's not a fine tooth analysis but we don't
need that right now, without objections I think we can pull it
in ASAP
... next PR is 199
burn: just a sec, dlongley just now left a comment
dlongley: I haven't had a chance to review this PR, I can take a quick look so there may be a couple quick changes before we pull it in
burn: anyone other than Dave who
feels they need time to review before we pull this in?
... ok not hearing particular concerns, since this is
vocabulary which can be dangerous to modify, since Manu and
dlongley have set and worked on a lot of those terms, once you
two and greg agree we can go ahead with it, can always update
when necessary
<manu> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/199
manu: great... next PR is
199
... this is adding effects on credential caching and the
refresh service
<burn> ACTION: Manu to merge #205 once he, Dave Longley, and Gregg Kellogg are okay with it
manu: I basically suggested we
take the caching section out
... the refresh service does add some functionality people have
asked for previously
... suggestion is to close this PR unless people have
objections and to open PR for refresh service
stonematt: manu, I'm +1 on that, DID caching got us off on another conversation on TTL, I left a conversation on 164, not exactly relevant to the refresh service, I just want to kind of direct you to that
manu: thanks, looking now
... we can def go through and need to respond to that
stonematt: just wanted to make sure it's on your radar
burn: ok, just wanted to see if any opinions on this
dlongley: +1 to closing that PR and doing another for refresh service
<stonematt> BTW, my usecase overview is in issue https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/164
burn: since this one is more
contentful, I think the group is in agreement with this I'd
like to give a day or two for confirmation of this
... if we hear no objections by EOD Friday, then I think it's
ok to take that action
manu: action to close the PR and do a new one?
burn: just saying we know DavidC is not on the call, just making sure since he probably has opinions
<manu> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/198
manu: next PR is 198, this is the
Subject NE Holder thread
... only one modification for it at this point, and I think
this conversation of delgation should be taken out and moved to
an issue marker to discuss delegation
... david can keep the section of delegation, but issue will
point to discussion of what the right mechanism of delegation
is, pushing to cwebber2's recent issue
stonematt: is this grounds to celebrate?
burn: yes it would, and I look
forward to DavidC agreeing to that
... looks like people are paying active attention. It means
once you or someone else has responded to the most recent
comments by DavidC a few days ago that I think we can finish
this one up
... anything else on that one Manu?
manu: nope, I think we're good
burn: want to discuss the last one?
manu: that one has not moved in a while... not sure why...
stonematt: dlongley said he'd review it
<tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/188
dlongley: I did review it
manu: feels more or less ready to go
burn: last comment from david was
asking about your review so I'm guessing he won't object to you
saying it's ok at this point
... any objections to merging at this time?
... want to push the button, Manu?
manu: go for it
burn: here we go... merged
stonematt: huzzah
burn: congratulations, we've
reduced one PR
... any other comments on the PRs? one last chance for this
week
burn: last item on the agenda is to review the least recently updated issues
<burn> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+sort%3Aupdated-asc
burn: here's a handy dandy link
that sorts them that way
... if you take a look at that...
... we actually already talked about issues 80 and 72 ???? last
week
... so we want to look at issue 32
manu: I think it's blocked by the
test suite
... we're waiting on a writeup of a simple web of trust
claim
... anyone in the BTCR hackathon last week?
Yancy: I was there, what's the q?
manu: if you have a web of trust
example from the BTCR hackathon, we can pull it in here
... cwebber could potentially work with you on that
Yancy: yes, I did a bit of work
with the VC hackathon, but I'm not very familiar with this
PR
... I can ping cwebber2 for input
<Yancy> my github user yancyribbens
burn: next issue is 109, how to
know who specified the terms of use?
... we have a PR, so I'm going to change this to PR
Exists
<stonematt> ACTION: Yancy will find the BTCR example and submit it to the test suite so we can close issue #32
burn: I'm going to ask if anything else needs to happen here other than the discussion in 170
dlongley: looks like 170 was closed in favor of 188 and 188 was one we just closed
burn: riiiiight, I'm going to add
a comment saying 170 was closed by 188 which has just been
merged... closing
... so I'll leave that as a comment and close this one
... privacy issue ???, last comment was from Nathan George,
June 12th
<Zakim> manu, you wanted to note update on anon credentials
manu: yeah, so is three anyone
from Evernym or Sovrin here who's working on that? I could
potentially provide an update
... I'm on the Sovrin technical governance board, this came up
in our last meeting, there are two people currently that are
trying to boil there ZKP language out into something we can
express in a proof in a VC
... I've spent a couple calls with them trying to work out the
details with them... I've let them know that the work is
closing, this group is going to feature freeze the spec so it's
important to get that hammered out, but there's active work
that's happening and hope is we'll hear about it in the next 2
weeks or so
burn: I just mentioned this to Nathan, but it seems an action must be taken here
<Allen> Noted!
burn: liam mentioned that maybe
Allen could work on ZKP stuff as well
... next item... #135 reference or test credential
... right... so this conversation kind of just fell off a
cliff, I think.
... this is from ??? and he has a way in which his architecture
works, he's trying to explain a use case that others agree is
not solved
<burn> ?
burn: there's agreement that
there's a use case we can't address
... other comments on this?
dlongley: we're waiting on a
section in the spec on how to do an extension
... I think the comment was he'd be ok with another technique,
if we had that section in the spec it would hopefully close it
up
burn: he was saying show me why this doesn't work, and we were saying show us why it needs to work
<manu> https://w3c.github.io/vc-data-model/#extensibility
manu: my reading was different,
he was saying the data model doesn't support this, we were
saying of course it does
... there's a section now on how to do an extension... dlongley
and I had a conversation on what needs to change. it may be
that we have addressed that now
... the core of the issue is there's no way to refer to other
documents in the credential. that's not true, linked data is
all about linking to other docs
... but he was saying yeah, but cryptographically, how do I
check that's cryptographically valid
... we have this completely undocumented thing called a linked
data proofa bout how to add a message digest to a link
... how to include a message digest to the document
... and provide intended integrity for the link
... in the advanced concepts section we could have a section on
content integrity?
... that may address his use case of ensuring integrity
... if there's no objections maybe we could do that
<dlongley> "Ensuring Integrity of Linked Documents"
manu: we could add a new section
to the advanced section to the advanced concepts section on how
to link to external documents and ensure integrity
... this should ping him because he owns it
burn: next one is #120, ids not
differentiated sufficiently
... this may be addressed already
... 176 has been merged, successor to 170 has been merged
<Zakim> manu, you wanted to say I think we addressed this.
burn: not sure about final comments david had in here
manu: I agree with David that it was addressed except for...
<stonematt> -1
manu: he's saying we should
change claim to subject
... let's step back and pretend the last 2 years didn't
happen
... that's the last thing holding this up and otherwise we
could resolve this completely
... my suggestion would be let's close this and open a new
issue about renaming claim to subject
... I think we could do this without damaging... from a
technical perspective this could work just fine, the quesiton
is.... well I think it'll raise a lot of other issues if we
discuss this, but I think it should be discussed in a separate
issue
<stonematt> resolves the possible cofusion of claim v. credential -- but subject v. holder is a bugaboo...
<burn> ACTION: Manu to open new issue of changing claim to subject, reference from this issue and close issue 120.
<TallTed> "subject" is a terribly overloaded literal... really shouldn't be used at all.
<stonematt> +1 to TallTed (and -1 to subject in this usage)
burn: issue 47 https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/47
3 types of claims
... I think Joe was saying he and Christopher will work on
examples
... anyone have a different idea on what needs to happen?
stonematt: maybe we could invite ChristopherA back to the call next week to engage on this issue. this is over a year old, kind of a cereberal case to begin with, I think we'd like his voice to have a resolution to it
burn: sounds like a fine idea
stonematt: is joe on the call?
burn: no, but he's probably on
the next call... one of us can poke Joe and Christopher
... I'll put something in the issue asking for an update
... we may have to contact them in person to get a
response
... issue 187, modeling travel use cases as an extension
example
... dlongley, want to comment on your understanding of the
status?
dlongley: looks like there was a
comment made while I was away asking for a PR to put into the
example
... is that the right thing to do?
stonematt: just reading the comments... catching up...
<burn> issue 187
stonematt: I think generally
speaking we had a desire to have links between focal use cases
(the more complex examples) to point to capabilities and the
data model, so that was the driver behind this request to get
to this document
... not sure where this lands in the data model itself
... we have a lot of examples in this data model itself
<Zakim> burn, you wanted to say that I believe this is Matt's opinion
stonematt: so it's a good way to say all this stuff comes together this way
burn: dlongley to answer your question I think it's not a group decision, is stonematt's opinion, but an informed one attempting to reflect his understanding of the group's opinion
dlongley: if the rest of the group thinks it's a good idea and if we need a new section on extensibility, if we can figure out where it should be I can do a PR with an example
stonematt: in general how do we link the use case documents ot the data model spec?
manu: it's just a simple link
between the two documents
... can reference non-normatively between them
... in section on extensibility.... this is a thin PR, link
sections X Y and Z to the use cases showing how to do what we
want
... I want to avoid the extensibility section getting way too
big
... I think that would avoid this PR getting too big
... I think that could be a simple web of trust example
... I don't think there's a useful example to have there as
well
stonematt: we could just as easily put this in our use case document in the ???
<Zakim> manu, you wanted to note how it might work in the use case document
manu: I wouldn't call this a
strong opinion but usually when groups finish, best practice is
to demo how you've achieved use cases with specs you've
written. dan you've got some suggestions, not in w3c but in
other places I've seen use cases examples, how the tech
achieves the use case
... not necessarily in the use cases document but could be
companion example
... one way is to embed directly, another to reference the
fil
e
stonematt: thanks... I know the
data model spec doc is getting quite long. if there's a smart
way to refer to another doc I'm certainly not opposed. If there
are things we don't expect to resolve in this document we can
call out as resolved later
... we can reference examples document, how we decide
<Zakim> liam, you wanted to note solutions ok in use cases
burn: I think you can discuss offline
liam: I urge you to put it in the use cases, in the xml query example it was important that there were example use cases, that can tie things together, I urge the WG to do the same here
<burn> my personal suggestion would be a separate document that aligns 1 for 1 with use cases
<tzviya> I agree with liam
<manu> +1 to liam
<stonematt> +1 to liam -- nice parting suggestion :)
burn: we're out of time, lots of people like what liam said, we can discuss it more but for now I think we're done with this one, thanks everyone we got through many issues just like last time
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/???/Natran/ Succeeded: s/Adian 72/issues 80 and 72/ Succeeded: s/this issue/issue 120/ Succeeded: s/137(??)/issue 47 https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/47/ Succeeded: s/understanding/understanding of the group's opinion/ Succeeded: s/case/cases/ Present: Dan_Burnett Tzviya_Siegman Yancy_Ribbens David_Ezell Dave_Longley Chris_Webber Liam_Quin Manu_Sporny Gregory_Natran Matt_Stone Alex_Ortiz Chris_Boscolo Allen_Brown Ted_Thibodeau Ganesh_Annan Regrets: Clare_Nelson WARNING: Possible internal error: join/leave lines remaining: <cwebber2> burn: I'm one of the chairs, I think stonematt has joined us? No ScribeNick specified. Guessing ScribeNick: cwebber2 Found Scribe: cwebber Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2018Jul/0010.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: manu yancy WARNING: Possible internal error: join/leave lines remaining: <scribe> burn: I'm one of the chairs, I think stonematt has joined us? WARNING: Possible internal error: join/leave lines remaining: <scribe> burn: I'm one of the chairs, I think stonematt has joined us? 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]