18:58:55 RRSAgent has joined #vcwg 18:58:55 logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/09/08-vcwg-irc 18:59:06 Zakim has joined #vcwg 18:59:46 brent has changed the topic to: VCWG Agenda 2021-09-08 https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2021Sep/0001.html 19:00:06 rrsagent, draft minutes 19:00:06 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/09/08-vcwg-minutes.html brent 19:00:14 rrsagent, make logs public 19:00:31 Meeting: Verifiable Credentials Working Group 19:00:58 Chair: Brent Zundel 19:01:03 Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vc-wg/2021Sep/0001.html 19:01:54 present+ 19:05:32 present+ 19:05:44 present+ 19:05:57 present+ 19:06:01 scribe+ 19:06:08 DavidC has joined #vcwg 19:06:12 present+ 19:06:26 drummond has joined #vcwg 19:06:32 present+ 19:06:46 brent: We are going to do some announcements, talk briefly about charter, and then we will come to PR review. 19:06:52 ... After PR review, we are going to triage some issues. 19:06:57 ... Then we will do a review of the v1.1 issues 19:07:07 ... Actually I'm going to switch those - we'll do v1.2 first 19:07:34 ... The reason is because, really, the time crunch we are facing. We need to have something ready by the beginning of October, to send out for wide review. That is only if we have substantive changes. 19:07:43 ... At this point I am not aware of any substantive changes that have been merged anywhere. 19:07:57 ... So if we want to get any substantive changes into this revision, that's the October 1st deadline. 19:08:07 ... For editorial revisions, the v1.1 stuff, there is no requirement for review. 19:08:18 ... The substantive changes require review... October 1st cutoff. 19:08:37 ... So this is the last time for changes... too submit to Credential Community Group.. 19:08:50 ... Ideally, by our next meeting we would have any substantive changes in 19:09:01 ... to make a static copy to submit for review (60 days) 19:09:12 ... If we don't need to do that, we can focus on editorial changes. 19:09:16 Topic: VCWG at TPAC 19:09:21 drummond_ has joined #vcwg 19:09:37 ... We plan to continue to have a meeting at TPAC. We sent out an email saying we scheduled a meeting for the 26th and 27th of October. 19:09:38 https://www.w3.org/wiki/TPAC/2021/GroupMeetings 19:09:41 ... Here is the link ^ 19:09:55 ... In that block, you'll find the VCWG meetings and links to the times and all of that. 19:10:02 Topic: Next VCWG Charter 19:10:14 brent: We spent quite a bit of time in this group working on the draft for a new charter. 19:10:22 ... We can have a discussion here about this, if folks feel it would be profitable. 19:11:10 q+ 19:11:12 ... I just want to give a heads-up that due to significant overlap between the Verifiable Credentials Working Group and the Decentralized Identifiers Working Group, the possibility that the DID WG may be operating under a full charter for longer than we anticipated means that we may not have sufficient participation in a VCWG for it to do everything that we were hoping it would in that draft 19:11:14 charter. 19:11:16 ... Happy to take questions on that 19:11:28 drummond_ has joined #vcwg 19:11:46 ... Heads up, our current charter expires in September. We were initially planning a more fully scoped VCWG to begin January some time, but the announcement of that group and the charter and everything has been put on hold in light of the stuff surrounding publishing the DID Spec. 19:12:11 ... For those who aren't familiar, there have been some formal objections that need to be addressed. 19:12:24 ack DavidC 19:12:40 DavidC: I think that the revised charter should concentrate solely on Verifiable Credentials, and not have any DID work. 19:12:48 ... If there is a DID WG, anything DID should be in that. 19:13:05 brent: I completely agree - but most if not all the participants in the DID WG are also participants in the VCWG. 19:13:16 ... So it's community and worker overlap, not topical overlap. 19:13:37 Topic: Review PRs 19:13:38 DavidC: I misunderstood... That explains it. 19:13:47 https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pulls 19:14:18 brent: We have 13 open PRs. Open PRs that are version 1 dot 1 (v1.1) we have nine (9) of those. The others are deferred to version 2. 19:14:18 https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+label%3Av1.1 19:14:24 ... better link ^ 19:14:45 ... All of these have been marked with the 14-day merge label. We'll just run through them very quickly, to give you an opportunity to ask questions and stuff like that. 19:14:49 ... Starting at the top: 19:15:20 subtopic: @pr 808 19:15:22 https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/808 19:15:38 brent: Credentials and Verifiable Credentials - David's raised this, it's responding to an issue. 19:16:00 ... I think there's only one question here. David, Ted made a suggestion, actually several, and you approved all of them but one. We weren't sure if that was an oversight or because you didn't agree with the change. 19:16:14 ... If you agree, we can commit the suggestion with Ted's approval and get smooth sailing on this PR 19:16:39 https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/808/files#r698749046 19:16:41 dmitriz has joined #vcwg 19:16:43 DavidC: OK, I thought I had agreed with all these changes. Manu suggested a change today and I've agreed with his change as well. I didn't realize there was one from Ted outstanding. What was it specifically? 19:16:54 brent: Here is a link directly to his comment ^ 19:17:03 ... I assume it had been inadvertedly overlooked 19:17:10 DavidC: [reads the comment/changes] 19:17:48 ... Ah, okay. Right, I don't agree with that change, because I don't think holders do assemble credentials. I thought holders only assemble Verifiable Credentials into a Presentation, and then they made that into a Verifiable Presentation. 19:18:08 brent: Excellent, we can move on. The notes from this meeting will automatically populate as a comment into that PR. 19:18:11 Stephen_Curran has joined #vcwg 19:18:17 DavidC: Yes, I disagree with that change, but would like others to comment as well. 19:18:27 subtopic: @pr 806 19:18:28 brent: Folks would like to contribute: we encourage comments there. 19:18:31 https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/806 19:18:39 ... With that, we can move onto PR 806 19:18:47 ... This is updating the text... to use floating dates 19:18:55 ... It's the diagram that's been changed - just something that needs review. 19:19:09 ... I urge folks to check it out and give their approvals on that. 19:19:13 ... Any questions on that before we move forward? 19:19:18 subtopic: @pr 805 19:19:19 https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/805 19:19:20 ... Moving on to PR 805 19:19:28 ... Issuer and issuanceDate - our examples didn't have issuer and issuanceDate 19:19:35 ... So this PR adds issuer and issuanceDate to every example. 19:19:40 ... I believe in the end they were all caught. 19:19:52 ... If you have not yet approved this pull request, I encourage you to jump in and take a look at it. 19:20:10 DavidC: I agree with it. I've also raised a separate issue. It's part of the Credential and Verifiable Credential issue. 19:20:32 ... I think we should remove the proof property from all, and make them all Credentials. By putting a proof property in... 19:21:20 ... We ought to remove that, because proofs are not in credentials, only in some verifiable credentials. 19:21:36 ... There is a section totally dedicated to proofs, and that's where it should be introduced - and no problem using it in that section. 19:21:49 ... But in other sections, it should not be there, especially when it's `"proof": ...` 19:22:15 ... The reason is that originally we thought all credentials would have proof - but then with JWTs, there was a disagreement that Manu did not want it 19:22:29 present+ 19:22:54 subtopic: @pr 804 19:22:55 https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/804 19:22:57 drummond_: What David is describing makes sense to me - I'm not as close to the spec... but it makes sense... 19:23:07 brent: PR 804 - Credential Status isn't required. 19:23:28 ... This is just a one-line change. If folks have not, jump in and approve it. It adds the "if present"... 19:23:40 DavidC: I don't understand why adding the word "may" makes a normative change. 19:23:44 brent: It's adding the word "if present" 19:24:04 ... credentialStatus is not a required property. Adding "if present" makes it clear we are talking about something that may or may not be there. 19:24:14 ... It's just a simple editorial ... change 19:24:24 DavidC: But it seems it makes a v1.1 change... 19:24:44 brent: It's a poorly-titled PR really. It's clarifying credentialStatus isn't required, without making any normative changes. 19:25:03 q+ 19:25:11 ack dlongley 19:25:13 DavidC: I'm just reading the PR... I do not understand why inserting the word "may" is a substantive change to fall in v1.2 not v.1 19:25:33 dlongley: I think the suggestion was to change "must" to "may" and that would be a normative change... that's different 19:25:48 DavidC: I agree, "must" is right - I thought it was saying credentialStatus ... 19:26:06 ... it absolutely must be a must. Now I understand it, we don't want to change it to "may" - it would be wrong semantically 19:26:11 subtopic: @pr 803 19:26:13 https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/803 19:26:14 brent: Moving onto PR 803 19:26:25 ... Update example 45 to use credentialStatus and valid JSON-LD 19:26:37 ... Some straightforward editing of one of the examples. 19:26:56 subtopic: @pr 802 19:26:58 https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/802 19:26:58 ... Any questions on that before we move forward? 19:27:08 ... Number 802. Again updating another example... the example for "evidence" 19:27:20 ... It kind of simplifies the example and adds a note describing what the example implies. 19:27:31 ... Again, looking for explicit approvals there, or comments if folks have questions. 19:27:41 ... Just a few more of these... 19:27:49 subtopic: @pr 801 19:27:51 https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/801 19:28:01 DavidC: You want us to put a tic on it, plus one or something like that? 19:28:25 brent: Yes... if folks give their approval explicitly, it gives us confidence that when merging it we'll not run into problems 19:28:37 ... Issue 801... Stale links 19:28:51 ... Looks like other than some line-length concerns, this has been approved... pretty straightforward 19:29:04 ... Two more, then we can move on to the more interesting issues. 19:29:05 subtopic: @pr 800 19:29:06 https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/800 19:29:26 ... Number 800. Clarify that if the credentialSubject id is present, that the id is an identifier associated with the credential subject. 19:29:33 ... There was a long conversation in an issue associated with this topic. 19:29:56 ... Issue 792 - on the PR itself and going back and forth 19:30:09 ... Unfortunately, this PR needs to be rebased. It looks like it's doing more than it is. 19:30:15 ... Really it's just the index.html file that has a note added to it. 19:30:27 DavidC: It's difficult to work out what the changes are now, isn't it? 19:30:42 brent: It carries some changes... the only change this PR is really suggesting is down in the index.html section 19:30:54 DavidC: I'm looking now at the diff. Which section should I look at to find... 19:31:01 brent: All the way down at the bottom... the files 19:31:14 DavidC: I'm clicked on the diff and now looking at the spec... which section? 7.5 or...? 19:31:19 brent: Identifiers section 19:31:24 DavidC: Got it, 4.2 19:31:32 ... [reading] 19:31:44 ... contains an id property, the value present is to be interpreted.... yeah, okay, right. 19:31:49 ... And it's in a note. That's the only change. 19:31:51 brent: Right. 19:32:02 DavidC: Isn't there something about status of note? 19:32:10 dlongley: Are you referring to them being informative? 19:32:16 DavidC: Yes 19:32:21 dlongley: Yes, that's generally the case 19:32:31 DavidC: Yes, looks fine then 19:32:38 brent: I'll make a suggestion to add the editorial fix 19:32:41 ... One last PR 19:32:51 ... This one I don't want to talk about for long at all. 19:32:57 subtopic: @pr 780 19:32:58 https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/780 19:33:04 ... This is, should we change the subtext of the data model. 19:33:21 ... Does anyone have a subtitle they would like to throw out now, that would end up in a comment in the PR? 19:33:32 ... If you aren't familiar with this conversation, feel free to jump in and make comments in the PR. 19:33:36 DavidC: Let's move on... 19:33:40 brent: Okay, next. 19:33:46 Topic: Triage Issues 19:33:51 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 19:34:10 brent: This link filters to look at any that are not given a 1.1, 1.2 or defer-v2 label. 19:34:15 ... We're going to start with 797 19:34:26 ... The only thing we are looking to do here is to make a determination of what labels to put on it. 19:34:34 subtopic: @issue 797 19:34:35 https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/797 19:34:48 DavidC: Michael said he is going to close it. He said this will be closed out if and when the VC Guide.... okay. 19:34:53 brent: Yes, which is a CCG work item 19:35:13 ... I'm not sure if tracking the work item there is the place for it to happen. I'm not sure how tracking it here helps. 19:35:31 DavidC: The thing is the work item has not been approved yet (has it?) I think Michael is saying once it's approved, we can move on... 19:35:42 ... It can't mean closing it out once the guide is completed... that's going to be months, isn't it. 19:35:53 brent: So this doesn't get a label, and we'll look at it next time 19:35:56 DavidC: I think so 19:35:58 subtopic: @issue 811 19:36:00 brent: Next, issue 811 19:36:03 https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/811 19:36:12 DavidC: Right, this is mine that I raised earlier in this meeting. 19:36:29 ... If people agree, we can remove the `"proof": ...` except for the section that talks about proof. 19:36:39 brent: The conversation earlier, nobody objected to that. 19:36:48 ... So I would move on with the PR. I'll throw a label on it. 19:36:59 ... Now we can look at the last one - also yours, David. 19:37:07 ... v1.1 or v1.2 19:37:11 subtopic: @issue 812 19:37:14 https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/812 19:37:16 q+ 19:37:18 DavidC: I hope it's v1.1. But I'd like feedback from the group, 19:37:27 ... on what they thought the schema property was meant to convey. 19:37:38 brent: I guess it comes down to, do you feel this issue is resolvable with editorial changes? 19:37:49 DavidC: Yes, I think it is... there's an issue I can point to, here... 19:37:55 https://github.com/w3c-ccg/vc-json-schemas/issues/51#issuecomment-912983546 19:38:01 ... I'm not participating in this work, but watching... 19:38:15 ... If you click on that, you will see it says... 19:38:26 ack dlongley 19:38:29 ... Obviously some people are using credentialSubject... 19:38:51 dlongley: My thought has always been that it applies to the entire VC. People can add properties in other places in a VC and would want to use a schema that way. 19:39:06 ... If not done that way, could specify to processor that it's only meant to apply to the subject... 19:39:22 DavidC: That was my understanding... just wanted to tighten the wording so it's 100% clear 19:39:33 brent: I agree with that interpretation, and that PR that resolves it would be appropriate for v1.1 19:39:41 ... Alright, those are all the issues that hadn't yet been triaged. 19:39:50 ... With what time we have, we'll look at issues labeled v1.2. 19:39:55 Topic: Review v1.2 Issues 19:39:59 https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues?q=is%3Aopen+label%3A%22substantive+change+v1.2%22+sort%3Aupdated-asc 19:40:13 ... This is a change for folks to say yes I definitely want to be the one to do that. 19:40:19 ... There are four of them. 19:40:49 ... Kyle is the assignee on any of them... If anyone in this group would make a PR... these substantive changes we really need in a week if to be included in the revision. 19:40:53 subtopic: @pr 782 19:40:54 https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/782 19:41:07 ... RFC 3339 vs ISO8601 vs XSD Date Time 19:41:38 ... At one point, the specification did use ISO8601 dates. In a converation with the W3, internationalization group came in I believe, and said, hey, you should really be using RFC 3339. 19:41:52 ... So what needs to happen here is a recommendation or determination of what needs to go forward. 19:42:10 ... We can have a conversation... I think the best thing would be if a PR shows up to make a recommendation, and we can have the discussion there. 19:42:25 subtopic: @issue 726 19:42:26 https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/726 19:42:30 brent: Alright. The next issue we are looking at is #726. 19:42:37 ... We talked about this issue in a meeting quite a while ago. 19:42:46 ... No, this is not that one. 19:43:06 ... "ZKP implementation - why proof and schema mandatory within derived VC?" - marked as v1.2 because it would require a normative change in the ZKP section... 19:43:18 ... basically changing a MUST to a MAY. Right not it says there must be a credentialSchema. 19:43:35 ... But there are credentials that may not require a credentialSchema the way CL signatures do. 19:43:51 ... Do folks agree with that? If a PR was raised, would folks agree? Would anyone here want to make that PR? 19:44:05 DavidC: This should be done by ZKP implementers, since they know what they are talking about. 19:44:13 brent: which means it probably should be me, if it's going to be done. 19:44:23 ... I'll assign myself to get it done this week 19:44:30 subtopic: @issue 748 19:44:31 https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/748 19:44:49 brent: URIs or URLs for ids. We specify things as URLs in the spec 19:45:02 ... There is some confusion there. Ted has suggested that yes, they should be changed to URI. 19:45:10 ... We would need a PR that goes through and makes those changes. 19:45:21 ... There doesn't seem to be consensus that this is something that needs to be done for sure. 19:45:33 ... But there's a discrepency, essentially... That discrepency is confusing. 19:45:43 ... Anyone want to make a PR? 19:46:11 DavidC: I have a comment. The standard is saying something should be a URI... This is not a breaking change. 19:46:29 ... If anyone using v1.0 is using a URL, they're still conforming if it's a URI, since a URL is a URI. 19:46:59 brent: If an implementer is insisting that a credentialStatus is a URL and not a URI, and doing type checking like that, then their implementation would be flagging v1.0 URLs as incorrect. 19:47:10 DavidC: Right, that would break implementations. I withdraw my comment. 19:47:23 cel: I can do it, considering I opened the issue. 19:47:23 q+ 19:47:32 q- 19:47:35 brent: I will add you to the assignee list, and look forward to seeing the PR. 19:48:02 dlongley: I don't know if anyone can tell looking at syntax whether something is a URI or URL... might not be something you could implement... given that, it might not be a substantive change. 19:48:06 brent: I appreciate that comment. 19:48:24 ... I'm open to - if folks feel the issue is mislabeled - relabeling it; that's no problem. 19:48:35 ... The decision to label it as a substantive change was an editorial decision. 19:48:52 ... What do folks here feel, is it possibly appropriate? ... We should err on the side of caution... 19:49:12 dlongley: I don't feel very strongly either way, but thought it was worth making that comment. 19:49:17 DavidC: I would not object to it in v1.1 19:49:33 ... You've got a problem if it can't get in next week - if Charles gets the flu, we're sunk... 19:49:49 brent: It also has to do with - if we are assering that this is an editorial change, we don't have to submit for editorial review. 19:50:07 ... Because there were normative statements... will leave it 1.2 for now. 19:50:10 +1 to being conservative and doing 1.2 19:50:13 subtopic: @issue 762 19:50:15 https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/762 19:50:19 no reason to jeopardize 1.1 on account of it 19:50:33 brent: Next one, 762. Can a credentialSubject be only a string. 19:50:55 ... Right now, no normative language says it must be an object. Could it just be a string? 19:51:05 dlongley: A string in JavaScript is also an object. 19:51:09 brent: Yes, so no big deal. 19:51:28 wayne: I'll comment on the thread and see if he responds 19:51:48 DavidC: No comment needed, the value of a credential subject is defined as a set of objects. So I think there is no change needed - certainly not 1.2. 19:52:04 ... The spec categorically states the value is defined as a set of objects... that's pretty concrete - in section 4.4 19:52:26 wayne: I retract that statement. In IETF, they are defined with curly braces, but in JavaScript they are an object 19:52:46 DavidC: I think it's clear, the credentialSubject is a set of objects. We have examples, a marriage certificate... has a set of subjects 19:52:57 brent: I think it could be... either an object or an array of objects. 19:53:05 ... Perhaps a PR here could clarify it in an editorial way. 19:53:12 DavidC: I think this is a 1.1. 19:53:20 +1 to a 1.1 change if its to say its an object or a set of objects 19:53:27 brent: Alright, I'm going to change the label. 19:53:38 DavidC: All we need to do is clarify it can be a string value 19:53:56 brent: ... Having that sentence would clarify. 19:54:15 Topic: Review v1.1 Issues 19:54:44 https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Av1.1+sort%3Aupdated-asc 19:54:53 brent: What's been interesting is the number of substantive errors that we've uncovered - substantive changes in response to errata - has been pretty editorial - interesting. 19:55:03 ... First one to look at is issue 727. 19:55:08 subtopic: @issue 727 19:55:09 https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/727 19:55:21 ... "Inconsistencies between figures and examples" 19:55:35 ... This issue shows we have all these examples, and we have all these figures, but there's not uniformity between them. 19:55:48 ... The example text and the figure text are often representing different credentials. 19:55:56 ... If there were a way to unify those and improve the consistency, that would be fantastic. 19:56:17 ... Any comments? If anyone wants to try to fix it, let me know so we can assign it to you. 19:56:23 ... Otherwise we'll move forward. 19:56:28 subtopic: @iisue 105 19:56:30 https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/105 19:56:43 ... #105. Holders and identifiers. 19:56:49 ... There's been a conversation since 2018 on this. 19:56:53 ... It's been going on for a while. 19:56:58 ... Is this an issue that still needs resolution? 19:57:06 ... If so, what do we feel that resolution ought to be? 19:57:23 DavidC: This is also tied up into later discussions we've had about holders and subjects. 19:57:33 ... Holders are not properly represented in the document... 19:57:41 ... There is reference to holders but not what they are... 19:57:50 ... Maybe we could say subsumed by... one of the other issues about holders 19:58:07 brent: Would it be appropriate to close this issue and note that conversation is continuing... 19:58:26 DavidC: I think... Issue 789... 19:58:51 subsumed by https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/789 closing 19:59:13 brent: And we are out of time. Thank you everybody. 19:59:26 ... Next week will be at our earlier time, a little friendlier for you David. 19:59:38 ... I will let folks know on the mailing list, we'll be meeting more regularly. 19:59:46 DavidC: This meeting was meant for New Zealand, for Kyle, wasn't it. 19:59:55 ... He definitely won't be at the next one - four hours earlier 20:00:03 brent: We can only do our best and hope 20:00:17 ... Thanks, appreciate the work. Hope for more clarity next week. 20:00:20 Thanks 20:00:33 zakim, who is here? 20:00:33 Present: brent, cel, dlongley, wayne, DavidC, drummond, dmitriz 20:00:35 On IRC I see Stephen_Curran, dmitriz, Zakim, RRSAgent, brent, dlehn4, hadleybeeman, manu, dlongley, cel, bigbluehat, stonematt, wayne, rhiaro 20:00:50 zakim, end the meeting 20:00:50 As of this point the attendees have been brent, cel, dlongley, wayne, DavidC, drummond, dmitriz 20:00:52 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 20:00:52 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/09/08-vcwg-minutes.html Zakim 20:00:56 I am happy to have been of service, brent; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye 20:01:00 Zakim has left #VCWG 20:01:06 rrsagent, please excuse us 20:01:06 I see no action items