14:49:13 RRSAgent has joined #vcwg 14:49:13 logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/09/29-vcwg-irc 14:49:16 RRSAgent, make logs Public 14:49:17 please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), ivan 14:49:37 Meeting: VC WG Telco 14:49:37 Chair: brent 14:49:37 Date: 2021-09-29 14:49:37 Agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/3dda3b2c-2ab9-4207-ab3f-3858ed9e1160/20210915T150000#agenda 14:49:37 ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2021-09-29: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/3dda3b2c-2ab9-4207-ab3f-3858ed9e1160/20210915T150000#agenda 14:55:45 brent has joined #vcwg 14:57:36 TallTed has joined #vcwg 14:59:50 DavidC has joined #vcwg 15:00:02 present+ 15:00:26 present+ 15:00:27 present+ 15:00:36 present+ cel 15:00:48 present+ TallTed 15:00:59 present+ 15:01:18 present+ brent 15:01:18 present+ manu 15:01:32 scribe+ manu 15:01:37 chair: wayne 15:01:56 rgrant has joined #vcwg 15:02:15 present+ 15:02:57 wayne: We'll talk about the agenda, TPAC, VC Charter refinement, review PRs, triage issues, and then get closer to determining outcomes of v1.1 issues and v1.2 issues (substantive changes) 15:03:09 brent: Hrm, perhaps old agenda? 15:03:15 present+ 15:03:37 TallTed has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2021-09-29: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/3dda3b2c-2ab9-4207-ab3f-3858ed9e1160/20210929T150000 15:03:43 https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/3dda3b2c-2ab9-4207-ab3f-3858ed9e1160/20210915T150000 15:04:09 wayne: any updates or changes to the agenda? 15:04:33 wayne: Any new introductions? Seems we all know each other here. 15:05:11 mwherman: Hello, Michael Herman here, CCG participant, I will be attending these calls more regularly. 15:05:17 present+ Michael_Herman 15:05:46 wayne: There are a number of PRs under 14 day merge, we can merge 15:05:52 q+ to note concerns about merging some of them. 15:06:00 Topic: PR Review 15:06:02 mwherman2000 has joined #vcwg 15:06:09 wayne: It might be good to sort by least recently updated. 15:06:22 https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+sort%3Aupdated-asc 15:06:27 wayne: There are 11 total, we can go from least recently updated and go forward. I'll share ink to view that I'm seeing. 15:06:40 wayne: All defer v2, we can skip them. 15:07:18 wayne: Lets talk about PR 814, there are changes requested here. 15:07:24 wayne: Michael, can you give us a summary? 15:07:29 subtopic: @pr 814 15:07:31 https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/814 15:07:58 s/CCG participant/CCG participant and WG Invited Expert/ 15:08:24 mwherman: I started a process there, good feedback, responded to some of that feedback. I've incorporated a lot of feedback into local copy, busy w/ other things, can respond to comments that are there. 15:08:27 q? 15:08:30 q+ 15:08:47 ack manu 15:08:47 manu, you wanted to note concerns about merging some of them. 15:08:48 scribe+ 15:09:07 manu: I was waiting for those changes to come in to do a re-review because there was quite a bit of discussion between Michael and Dave. 15:09:27 q- 15:09:54 manu: I am concerned about the size of the PR. I agree with some of the content at the beginning but then it gets repetitive and then it gets into a lot of things I have concerns. It may look like we're close here but I haven't done a review and have a lot of concerns, I don't want people to be surprised. My preference would be for this to be dealt with small bite sized PRs. 15:10:05 manu: If we are going to deal with this as a fairly large PRs, I think there will be a lot more input in it. 15:10:06 q? 15:10:35 mwherman2000: I accept that and it's all interconnected. I think this is also text that would be in the guide I'm working on. I apologize for the time it's been taking. 15:10:38 mwherman2000: I think that it's good that it's one piece, this is the kind of text that I expect being in the guide. Apologies for the timing, live on a farm an sometimes can't get back to doing the things I want to do. 15:10:54 wayne: That it might have another home might also help reduce the size of the text here. 15:10:55 q? 15:11:09 https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/817 15:11:11 wayne: Next PR is by DavidC 15:11:22 subtopic: @pr 817 15:11:22 subtopic: @pr 817 15:12:45 DavidC: This is all in the issue request... basically, when we rolled the standard intitially, every VC would have a proof property, very late in the day that JWT was specified, discussion in the group. Manu argued that proof should be removed for JWT, I argued that it should have some contnet. Manu's argument was accepted. Regardless of proof mechanism, you start off w/ a credential, you turn it into a VC, they should be identical irrespective of proof 15:12:45 mechanism you use. 15:13:14 s/mechanism you use./... mechanism you use./ 15:13:16 DavidC: We have the text to confirm that, what we don't have is the equivalent in the examples, they still contain a proof, confuses the reader. This proposal is that proofs are removed from examples except where proof property is described. 15:13:18 present+ by_caballero 15:13:29 DavidC: Manu has disagreed strongly with that. 15:14:21 manu: My position hasn't changed, strong objection to removing all the proof stuff in the spec. I do agree with David and the basic framing of what we'd like to do. But mass-deleting every instance of proof I think would potentially send the wrong message. It's a big change for a v1.1 spec too. I'd like more people involved in what's the best way to do it. 15:14:39 manu: The size of the PR is big as well because it's across the whole spec. I'd like more people than just David and me providing input. 15:15:19 ack manu 15:15:20 manu: And a smaller PR. I think we should talk about the best way to approach this. There are people like Orie going "The JWT stuff was a complete mistake and we should nuke it off the face of the planet" but he's not on the call to make that argument and I don't agree with it anyway. 15:15:23 q? 15:15:39 There is a related set of global example changes re: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/815#issuecomment-930273229 15:15:42 q+ 15:15:54 DavidC: While the number of lines that are changed are significant, the changes are all absolutely identical, not a technically difficult change to comprehend, once you understand one of them, you understand all of them. 15:15:56 DavidC: Whilst the number of lines that are changed is significant, the changes are all identical, so it's not a technically difficult change to understand. It's a lot of lines changed but the actual content is really quite trivial. 15:16:05 q+ 15:16:11 q? 15:16:16 ack mwherman2000 15:16:51 mwherman2000: So, I'm going to link in issue 55, in addition to JSON-LD, having non-LD examples as well, this is going to result in broad changes, auxilliary example for all JSON-LD examples. 15:16:54 q? 15:16:56 q+ to propose a path forward. 15:16:58 ack mwherman2000 15:17:01 q? 15:17:03 ack mw 15:17:05 ack dlongley 15:17:29 dlongley: Something, IIRC, someone was going to look into using the tabs approach for examples, so this PR would become "add tabbed exapmles", adding JWT as additional examples. 15:17:32 ack manu 15:17:32 manu, you wanted to propose a path forward. 15:17:53 It's not 55 ....it's 815 that is talking about tabs 15:17:53 q+ 15:17:54 https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/815#issuecomment-930273229 15:18:25 q+ to ask about proof object referring to external JWS 15:18:35 manu: Yes, agree with Dave that that is probably the right approach. I'm objecting to the construction of the PR, not the idea behind it. Other specs have dealt with this issue by providing tabbed examples. The right approach is probably 1 tab with the credential itself, 1 with the LD proof VC, and 1 with the JWT VC. Then people can switch between the tabs and examples and see what everything looks like. 15:18:48 ack DavidC 15:18:48 manu: I think that approach can get consensus and the right thing to do is to raise that PR instead of committing this one. 15:18:52 I will volunteer to code up a PR for the first set of tabs ...I will add the plain old JSON tabe 15:18:54 tab 15:19:10 DavidC: I think that is an excellent suggestion, the only issue that i have is that I'm not technically competent enough with the software to do the tabbing 15:19:14 q+ the editors can do that 15:19:16 DavidC: I think that's an excellent suggestion. The only issue I have is that I'm not technically competent enough with the software and storage to know how to do the tabbing. Whilst I'd be happy to do it, I have no technical ability to do it. 15:19:16 Then adding incremental tabs should be more straight forward 15:19:22 q+ 15:19:27 q? 15:19:28 ack cel 15:19:28 cel, you wanted to ask about proof object referring to external JWS 15:19:35 wayne: Ok, that can be done 15:19:50 cel: I like tabbed idea as well, have proof object that refers to have JWT, has that been discussed. 15:19:54 q? 15:19:56 bumblefudge has joined #vcwg 15:19:57 ack ivan 15:19:58 q+ 15:20:03 present+ 15:20:22 i'm juan from spruce, not sure the aliases/people.json file has me in it 15:20:25 ivan: On the practical side, the JSON-LD spec has such an example, so that may be a distilled mechanism there. 15:20:26 ack manu 15:20:34 Who has a link to a tangible example of tab HTML coding? 15:20:51 I'm technically capable. 15:20:58 @mwherman2000 do you mean specifically in ReSpec? 15:21:07 Yes 15:21:20 https://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld11/#example-11-term-expansion-from-context-definition <-- an example 15:21:27 In the source code (or whereever) for the Recommendation document? 15:21:31 q+ 15:22:19 q+ 15:22:28 ack manu 15:22:31 ack mw 15:22:33 thanks manu, that makes sense 15:22:38 https://w3c.github.io/json-ld-syntax/ -> the source for the spec 15:22:54 manu: I'm happy to open a PR with the tabbed approach, but we should be aware that we may be reopening a can of worms and a whole discussion about the various types of proofs and so on. 15:22:59 link to example using tabs: https://github.com/w3c/json-ld-syntax/blob/5276cc2cde38f491fe3a2f1c162cf0a1b3b5e82b/index.html#L782 15:23:00 mwherman2000: My suggestion, following on to what Manu said, we need a small number of canonical examples in the spec... JSON, JSON-LD, and some others. 15:23:34 q? 15:23:37 ack DavidC 15:23:40 mwherman2000: When I was doing Guide/Primer, we could start getting into different varieties, create community notes on other representations, keep it to 2-4 and not 7, it'll give the reader a rounded view of parameters. For at least v1.1, we should be able to agree on a small group of 3-4 15:24:16 DavidC: I think it'll be less than 3-4, we really only have JSON-LD and JWT, I don't think we have ZKP, I think we'd only have two tabs now. 15:24:35 DavidC: Further tabs will come later down the line. 15:24:50 q+ how do we decide on the 2-3 representations? 15:24:51 wayne: Sounds like we're all agreed that way to go is tabbed approach. 15:24:52 q? 15:25:01 wayne: Are there any objections to that? 15:25:05 No objections. 15:25:07 q? 15:25:09 q? 15:25:16 q+ 15:25:27 mwherman2000: How do we decide on the short list? 15:25:28 q+ 15:25:32 ack mwherman2000 15:25:34 ack mwherman 15:25:36 q- 15:25:50 wayne: The spec as is says you can use external proofs or embedded... 15:25:58 mwherman2000: Hoping there would be a plain 'ol JSON example. 15:26:21 wayne: As DavidC noted in the PR, there is such a credential definition ... perhaps that is an example that can be listed. 15:26:41 mwherman2000: Can we make a proposal now that plain 'ol JSON is one, JSON-LD is another, third is JWT. 15:26:53 wayne: I think that sounds like a good path, don't need to vote on it. 15:26:57 q+ to say we should just have a PR 15:26:59 q- 15:27:28 wayne: Ok, looks like no dissenters, let's see if we can provide that PR separately. 15:27:33 i would say credential + ld proof VC + JWT VC is a good approach (if that's what is being said) 15:27:38 +1 15:27:42 manu: agree 15:27:44 q? 15:27:50 Offline, I will connect with David Chadick and Manu in terms of execution on the tabs 15:27:54 wayne: Ok, anything else? 15:28:12 subtopic: @pr 822 15:28:21 https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/822 15:28:22 I think this has received approval. 15:28:25 q? 15:28:53 DavidC: Is this a substantive change to v1.2 15:29:30 wayne: I'll ask Kyle. 15:29:36 manu: It is a substantive change. 15:29:39 q? 15:29:42 manu: It has to go to v1.2 15:29:54 wayne: Ok, we don't need another review period, content is fine, just need to retarget to v1.2 15:30:04 https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/816 15:30:09 subtopic: @pr 816 15:30:34 q? 15:31:35 q? 15:32:48 wayne: Manu you've requested some changes to remove normative language, those were applied. 15:32:50 https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/816 15:32:51 wayne: On issue 816, clarification of sschema roperty, 3/4 approvals, manu requested changes, but seems like they've been addressed, is that correct. 15:33:02 manu: If that was done, we're good to go. 15:33:10 manu: Yup, that's done, let me just approve, we're good. 15:33:27 wayne: Ok, squashing and merging. 15:33:33 wayne: do we mean to merge into v1.1 15:33:35 q? 15:33:59 wayne: Can I change this so it merges to v1.1? 15:34:02 DavidC: Yes, please. 15:34:17 wayne: Seems like they're conflicts, we'll have to fix those. 15:34:28 q? 15:34:35 wayne: Just README and diagrams are conflicting, this is more of a technical git issue, I can help w/ that. 15:34:46 q? 15:34:52 wayne: Any other comments on this PR 15:35:04 wayne: One more PR review... This one by cel. 15:35:06 https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/819 15:35:14 subtopic: @pr 819 15:35:18 subtopic: @pr 819 15:36:00 wayne: this looks like it's good to go, needs to be retargeted to v1.2? 15:36:06 manu: yes 15:36:08 cel: yes 15:36:27 wayne: Looks like there is no v1.2 branch, we'll resolve out of band. 15:36:44 wayne: We need to move on to issues. 15:36:47 q? 15:36:58 Topic: issues 15:37:17 wayne: We have 4 issues that haven't been triaged. We can attempt to triage all 4. 15:37:19 q+ 15:37:21 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 15:37:24 wayne: We will address v1.1 issues after that 15:37:24 q? 15:37:26 ack brent 15:37:53 brent: The categories that we can triage into are editorial bug fixes or defer, we're out of runway to do any substantive bug fixes at this point. 15:38:07 wayne: Yes, we're in mainenance mode and running out of time to make bigger changes. 15:38:08 subtopic: @issue 821 15:38:13 https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/821 15:38:24 wayne: Can you give us context TallTed? 15:38:48 TallTed: Binding is a much stronger relationship than any of the relationships that we've been discussing... we can associate, but bind is a bit too strong. 15:39:03 TallTed: I haven't done anything yet, just the terminology is bad. 15:39:39 dlongley: I agree with Ted, this comment was on a PR that was talking about binding language, might not have "binding" language in the spec. We should consider being careful with this language and avoid "binding" terminology because it's too strong. 15:40:20 TallTed: I thought binding language wasn't in v1.0, but it is in another PR? 15:40:22 q+ 15:40:39 wayne: The PR where it was first brought up was targeting v1.1, so we might need to resolve this. 15:40:43 q? 15:40:44 q+ 15:40:45 ack manu 15:40:59 https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/818 did not introduce "binding" ... is there another PR? 15:41:17 ack brent 15:41:26 https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/818#discussion_r707644135 15:42:09 brent: 818 doesn't introduce binding language, there are some language that raised questions for Ted. My response brought up the whole binding language and that turned into "how much do we want to talk about the holder and how they're connected to the credentials" etc. 15:42:37 q? 15:42:42 brent: I don't think there are changes that need to be made to v1.0, v1.1, or v1.2 to correct any language that exists in the spec, let's refine language moving forward, can be done substantively or editorially. 15:43:00 q? 15:43:06 wayne: An important distinction that emerged from discussion, it's not within the literal text, doesn't need to be fully resolved. Anyone have a recommended next step? 15:43:09 q+ 15:43:09 q+ 15:43:12 ack brent 15:43:12 q- 15:44:04 brent: One possible next step, this issue serving as a place where the discussion can occur for how we want to refer to holders in the spec. Do we want to think about, suggestion in some of the community, normatively say something? This is a place where those conversations can happen. Not really a v1.1 or v1.2 issue. 15:44:05 q+ 15:44:16 brent: depends on where people think a solution should go? 15:44:33 q? 15:44:35 ack manu 15:44:36 wayne: Could be clarification 15:45:06 manu: My suggestion is that we defer to v2. Primarily because this feels like a broader discussion, like a spec philosophy discussion. It's a good, broad discussion to have and therefore doesn't seem appropriate for v1.1 or v1.2. 15:45:19 +1 on defer to V2. Need to have the conversation, and the broader the group the better. 15:45:21 +1 to manu 15:45:34 manu: There are many people that have opinions about how holder association or "binding" should be done. I think we need a section in the spec about that, it can't be addressed with a few sentences. 15:45:44 wayne: I'm ok with that, any objections to defer to v2? Looks like there is support to deferring to v2. 15:45:56 https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/797 15:46:03 subtopic: @issue 797 15:46:15 q? 15:46:18 wayne: We have a principled objection in 797, there has been discussion and constructive evolution since then, where do we stand with this issue? 15:46:37 mwherman2000: Is this the one about the voting and the naming? 15:46:54 wayne: This is the objection about VC Data Model not implementable. 15:47:06 q? 15:47:08 q+ 15:47:19 q+ 15:47:22 mwherman2000: Yes, that is resolved via the Guide, as soon as that's approved this will be closed. The VC Guide. 15:47:42 wayne: VC Guide pending proposal in CCG. 15:47:47 q+ 15:48:05 q? 15:48:11 wayne: Just as a word of caution, principled objections are taken extremely seriously, principled objections need to be considered ... 15:48:24 TallTed: Point of order, principled objections happen to CG documents, which are not REC track. 15:48:40 q? 15:48:41 ack brent 15:48:43 wayne: It is unclear where this fits into the process of WG, VC Data Model is already published. 15:49:02 mwherman2000: I'll follow up with wayne offline, help me understand where we are so we can get this cleaned up. 15:49:25 q= 15:49:32 brent: I like the idea of the VC Guide, if the primary purpose of this issue is to track that work, its strange to have an item in the VCWG that tracks a CCG issue. 15:49:37 q+ 15:49:51 brent: If there are additional objections that need to be resolved, we should identify what needs to happen in VCWG to see what happens. 15:49:56 ack DavidC 15:50:01 +1 for closing this issue because the resolution is to do work elsewhere, no changes here. 15:50:10 brent: If it's a tracking issue, we should close. Otherwise, maybe keep it open. 15:50:41 q? 15:50:43 ack TallTed 15:50:47 DavidC: This came up on CCG call yesterday, Michael needs to join CCG meeting and present, they're waiting for you to approve the work item Micael. 15:51:32 +1 15:51:37 q? 15:51:40 TallTed: I think that the reason this turned into a CCG work item was because Michael was not in the WG at the time and is now an invited expert. Since this has the same impact as a Note, perhaps work item should transfer back to WG, not going to change its impact in any way, cleans up what is, at present, a scrambled mess. 15:51:40 ack mwherman2000 15:52:19 mwherman2000: It's really simpler than all of this, the original thing was this issue and the solution was "someplace else". The issue isn't to track the work item, the VC Guide, it'll address the concern, as soon as that's approved, this issue will be closed. 15:52:24 ack mw 15:52:30 mwherman2000: One is not linked to the other other than issue and solution. 15:52:32 q+ 15:52:51 mwherman2000: Where does the creation of the guide, jurisdiction, I don't care, I'm just writing the guide. 15:52:57 q? 15:53:01 ack TallTed 15:53:32 TallTed: Problems there include the IP agreement that apply to things, this is a weird situation in W3C, inrelationship between VCWG and CCG, this particular issue is against this WGs output, so the solution needs to be in WG output. 15:53:40 q+ 15:53:44 q? 15:53:45 ack mwherman2000 15:54:01 TallTed: I think that was slapdash "How can we do this quickly." and it wasn't addressed. 15:54:02 q? 15:54:11 mwherman2000: I'll close the issue and we can have VCWG work on it. 15:54:17 +1 15:54:25 s/VCWG/CCG/ 15:54:28 I'm not going to fight it, but it's still more than a little strange 15:54:35 +1 to closing 15:54:42 +1 to closing 15:54:46 wayne: I think TallTed's suggestion is pretty great, we can just continue CCG process, open up work item there, hopefully chairs there will let it through, as soon as VCWG is interested, we can continue work in this group, address concerns here. 15:54:52 q? 15:55:02 ack mw 15:55:21 wayne: I think we do have time for one more issue... 15:55:27 https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/820 15:55:29 subtopic: @issue 820 15:55:30 q+ 15:55:37 ack manu 15:56:01 manu: The question he's asking is a bit difficult to parse so I took a perspective, don't know if it's right. When you use a refresh service, the issuer can do whatever they want to. 15:56:20 https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/797#issuecomment-930308901 closed 15:56:53 manu: The expectation that the holder/requester has is they have an expired/revoked VC and they hit the refresh service. The issuer could say "No, you can't have another" or "here's a new one with a new expiration date" or "here's a new one and some contents have changed" or "here's a whole new VC with a new credential schema" or "here's something totally different". 15:57:16 manu: All of those are valid, but none are standardized. Probably expanding on that is a v2 discussion. We're having active discussions in the VC API meetings around how refresh works. 15:57:28 manu: In general, that's where we are now, their question probably won't be formally addressed until v2 work starts. 15:57:38 q? 15:57:38 wayne: I think we can defer to v2 to have a discussion about it. 15:57:40 wayne: Ok, we can defer to v2 so we can have a deeper discussion about it. 15:57:41 +1 to defer to v2 15:57:48 +1 15:57:52 dmitriz has joined #vcwg 15:58:01 https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3Av1.1+sort%3Aupdated-asc 15:58:11 Topic: v1.1 issues 15:58:18 q? 15:58:22 wayne: We didn't get to any 1.1 issues, if anyone feels strongly that we should cover a v1.1 issue, we might need to do some of this next week. Any burning issues while we have a few minutes left? 15:58:28 q+ 15:58:43 ack manu 15:58:51 q+ 15:58:59 q? 15:59:00 DavidC: We can close 812, we just merged schema issue. 15:59:30 q+ 15:59:31 manu: The question is, what happens if we don't get to the v1.1 issues. My expectation is that we'll defer to v1.2 or v2, that's how issuing processing will go if we don't get things in time for the current release we just push to the next one. Is that right? 15:59:38 wayne: Yes. 15:59:48 q- 15:59:54 DavidC: I want to do PR for JWT, how do I make sure I don't pull from wrong branch? 15:59:55 q+ to hopefully address confusion 16:00:07 q? 16:00:14 wayne: Just branch off of v1.1 16:00:33 ack brent 16:00:33 brent, you wanted to hopefully address confusion 16:00:34 cel: I sent something to group about VC tool for verifying VCs. 16:00:38 DavidC: Can you do JWTs? 16:00:41 cel: Yes, I think so. 16:00:53 brent: was going to clarify issue processing, but can do that offline. 16:00:59 zakim, end meeting 16:00:59 As of this point the attendees have been DavidC, brent, ivan, cel, TallTed, wayne, manu, rgrant, dlongley, Michael_Herman, by_caballero, bumblefudge 16:01:02 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 16:01:02 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/09/29-vcwg-minutes.html Zakim 16:01:05 I am happy to have been of service, ivan; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye 16:01:09 Zakim has left #VCWG 16:01:52 rrsagent, bye 16:01:52 I see no action items