18:58:19 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #vcwg
18:58:19 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/08/25-vcwg-irc
18:58:33 <brent> rrsagent, draft minutes
18:58:33 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/08/25-vcwg-minutes.html brent
18:58:41 <brent> rrsagent, make logs public
18:59:08 <brent> Meeting: Verifiable Credentials Working Group
18:59:14 <brent> Chair: Brent Zundel
18:59:33 <brent> present+
19:00:41 <cel> present+
19:04:06 <DavidC> DavidC has joined #vcwg
19:04:12 <DavidC> present+
19:05:01 <brent> scribe+ DavidC
19:05:02 <manu> present+
19:05:44 <brent> Topic: Agenda review
19:06:40 <DavidC> Agenda: TPAC meeting
19:09:47 <DavidC> ACLU: Any non-profit that wants expertise on VCs can engage with the chairs or the editors
19:09:58 <brent> Topic: VCWG at TPAC
19:09:59 <manu> s/ACLU/wayne/g
19:10:12 <brent> https://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC/2021/GroupMeetings
19:10:19 <manu> We have the ACLU that would like to engage, should I get back to them and invite? ^^^
19:10:40 <manu> That's the "Americal Civil Liberties Union"
19:10:45 <DavidC> We have nothing on the TPAC agenda yet
19:10:52 <brent> Topic: Next VCWG Charter
19:11:11 <brent> https://w3c.github.io/vc-wg-charter/
19:12:00 <DavidC> brent: charter has been updated to take into account all the comments from the last meeting
19:12:03 <manu> q+ to mention https://w3c.github.io/vc-wg-charter/#ig-other-deliverables needing more description.
19:12:11 <DavidC> ... we are now in a position to share it more broadly
19:12:17 <brent> ack manu
19:12:17 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to mention https://w3c.github.io/vc-wg-charter/#ig-other-deliverables needing more description.
19:13:34 <DavidC> manu: Other deliverables is not clear enough yet. The scope of each one is unclear
19:13:50 <DavidC> ... we should add a paragraph describing each one
19:14:13 <brent> Topic: Review PRs
19:14:23 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pulls
19:15:30 <manu> q+
19:15:46 <DavidC> topic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/795
19:15:48 <brent> subtopic: @pr 795
19:17:00 <DavidC> brent: this is not errata but is making normative changes
19:17:01 <brent> ack manu
19:17:44 <DavidC> ... so it should be put in 2.0
19:18:25 <DavidC> manu: I talked to Steven and he agrees that this PR should be removed and an issue raised to bring it into v2.0
19:19:01 <DavidC> ... Steven has said he will close the PR after he has added this issue for v2.0
19:19:14 <DavidC> brent: I am adding the defer v2.0 label
19:19:48 <DavidC> brent: now I would like to focus on v1.1 PRs
19:19:50 <brent> subtopic: @pr 787
19:19:51 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/787
19:20:49 <manu> q+
19:20:53 <brent> ack manu
19:21:29 <DavidC> brent: summarised that ToU is said to be in presentations but this is not described properly. ie. there is a bug in the spec
19:21:52 <DavidC> manu: approves the merge of this PR and it is after the 14 day review
19:21:56 <wayne> present+
19:22:30 <brent> subtopic: @pr 786
19:22:32 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/786
19:23:02 <manu> q+
19:23:12 <brent> ack manu
19:24:26 <DavidC> manu: unfortunately the next time we update the diagrams it will overwrite the good changes the chaals did
19:24:52 <DavidC> ... there is not a good solution to this because the diagrams are in google.docs but it does not support his changes
19:25:37 <manu> +1 to merge and face consequences
19:25:38 <DavidC> ... either it will be difficult to update the diagrams or difficult for some people to read them.
19:25:55 <dmitriz> dmitriz has joined #vcwg
19:26:21 <DavidC> brent: is anyone opposed to merging this now?
19:26:44 <DavidC> There was no opposition so Manu performed the merge
19:26:55 <brent> subtopic: @pr 780
19:26:57 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/780
19:28:23 <manu> q+
19:28:28 <brent> ack manu
19:29:17 <DavidC> brent: the current subtitle is not correct. but we dont have the perfect subtitle yet
19:29:30 <DavidC> manu: I agree so we cannot merge yet
19:29:32 <brent> subtopic: @pr 771
19:29:34 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/771
19:30:16 <manu> q+
19:30:21 <brent> ack manu
19:30:33 <DavidC> brent: is this a breaking change or not? Should it be 1.1 or 1.2
19:31:22 <DavidC> manu: 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
19:32:20 <DavidC> ... 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
19:35:13 <DavidC> ... this change does not affect implementors using JSON or JSON-LD processing, but only those doing graph processing
19:35:22 <brent> Topic: Issue Triage
19:35:31 <DavidC> It was agreed to change the status of this to Defer to 2.0
19:35:44 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues?q=is%3Aopen+-label%3A%22substantive+change+v1.2%22+sort%3Aupdated-asc+-label%3Av1.1+-label%3Adefer-v2
19:36:14 <brent> subtopic: @issue 791
19:36:21 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/791
19:37:08 <manu> q+
19:37:13 <brent> ack manu
19:37:23 <DavidC> brent: this is not a 1.1 or 1.2 issue, we should defer to v2.0
19:37:59 <DavidC> manu: no W3C spec is titled Concensus based, so it will never be accepted
19:43:20 <brent> Yeah, since the W3C process is consensus-based, this addition to the title would need to be added to all W3C specs
19:43:43 <brent> and we don't have enough folks here to make the decision anyway
19:43:46 <manu> Fine with us re-visiting this on a v2.0 timeframe.
19:43:50 <DavidC> DavidC: all standards are concensus based to the best of my knowledge
19:43:54 <manu> s/Fine/I'm fine/
19:44:11 <brent> subtopic: @issue 789
19:44:14 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/789
19:44:36 <manu> +1 to defer v2
19:44:46 <DavidC> brent: this should be defer to v2.0
19:44:50 <DavidC> +1
19:45:10 <brent> subtopic: @issue 796
19:45:12 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/796
19:45:58 <manu> Suggest deferring to v2.0
19:46:25 <DavidC> brent: whilst no-one objects to this principle, this is out of scope of our current charter
19:46:43 <brent> subtopic: @issue 792
19:46:46 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/792
19:47:25 <manu> q+
19:47:30 <manu> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/792#issuecomment-900283929
19:47:31 <brent> ack manu
19:47:42 <DavidC> brent: this editorial change could fit into v1.1
19:49:31 <manu> DavidC: Part of the issue is bearer VC -- understanding who it's attached to -- nobody, everybody, etc.
19:50:35 <manu> DavidC: I don't think it covers the "no holder" use case... we should write about "if not specified".
19:50:43 <manu> brent: Let's do a separate issue for that
19:50:45 <manu> manu: yes, please.
19:51:03 <brent> subtopic: @issue 797
19:51:09 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/797
19:52:05 <manu> q+
19:52:21 <brent> ack manu
19:52:56 <DavidC> brent: no PR has been raised to address this issue, so no resolution is currently available
19:53:29 <DavidC> manu: we have to record this objection unless the author takes it back.
19:54:03 <DavidC> brent: the issue must remain open until some action is taken
19:54:29 <brent> Topic: v1.1 issues
19:54:30 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Av1.1+sort%3Aupdated-asc
19:54:57 <brent> subtopic: @issue 736
19:55:02 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/736
19:55:04 <manu> q+
19:55:23 <brent> ack manu
19:55:42 <DavidC> manu: this has been addressed by 737 so it should be closed now
19:56:03 <brent> subtopic: @issue 770
19:56:12 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/770
19:56:40 <manu> +1 to defer v2
19:56:42 <DavidC> brent: label this defer to v2.0
19:57:01 <brent> subtopic: @issue 750
19:57:03 <brent> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/750
19:57:34 <DavidC> brent: there is a PR that has been merged to cover this
19:58:13 <manu> q+
19:58:42 <brent> ack manu
19:58:44 <manu> DavidC: We should take the same approach for all of them.
20:00:04 <DavidC> manu: we should have put the word example in front of all these and added them to the example @context
20:01:06 <DavidC> brent: is anyone opposed to closing this particular issue?
20:01:08 <DavidC> none
20:03:08 <DavidC> brent: i will email everyone with proposed meeting times
20:27:43 <brent> brent has left #VCWG