15:23:52 RRSAgent has joined #vcwg 15:23:53 logging to https://www.w3.org/2021/12/08-vcwg-irc 15:23:54 inviting RRSAgent 15:23:55 RRSAgent, make logs Public 15:23:56 please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), ivan 15:25:56 Meeting: VC WG Telco 15:25:56 Chair: brent 15:25:56 Date: 2021-12-08 15:25:56 Agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/09d87673-16d6-488f-8bae-8e8ec3a1d728/20211208T110000#agenda 15:25:56 ivan has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2021-12-08: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/09d87673-16d6-488f-8bae-8e8ec3a1d728/20211208T110000#agenda 15:25:56 clear agenda 15:25:56 agenda+ Verifiable Credentials Working Group ( View Calendar) 15:25:56 agenda+ Download this occurrence as ics 15:25:56 agenda+ Download all occurrences as ics 15:26:12 agenda? 15:26:38 agenda- 15:26:38 agenda? 15:29:24 agendabot help 15:29:24 ivan, I am an instance of AgendaBot 0.3. For detailed help, type "help COMMAND", where COMMAND is one of invite, agenda, find, suggest, accept, this is, forget, status or bye. Or go to https://www.w3.org/Tools/AgendaBot/manual.html 15:29:35 help agenda 15:31:51 clear agenda 15:31:56 agenda? 15:46:39 brent_ has joined #vcwg 16:00:28 TallTed has joined #vcwg 16:01:24 present+ 16:01:30 present+ brent 16:01:35 present+ cel 16:01:39 present+ tallted 16:02:14 present+ 16:02:14 rgrant has joined #vcwg 16:02:38 present+ davidc 16:03:14 scribe+ 16:03:48 brent_: Agenda is straightforward, we'll talk about the draft charter, do PR review, issue triage, and working through 1.1 issues. 16:03:54 brent_: Anything else to add to the agenda today? 16:04:24 brent_: I do want to start with a question for Ivan -- have you heard back from Phillippe about this WG charter being extended? 16:04:37 ivan: Yes, it was on the W3M agenda today, I'll have a call about some questions with him and some others on Friday, but it's happening. 16:04:48 brent_: Thanks, that's what I was hoping to hear. 16:04:49 Topic: VCWG Draft Charter 16:04:55 present+ kevind 16:04:59 https://github.com/w3c/vc-wg-charter/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+sort%3Aupdated-asc 16:05:00 present+ rgrant 16:05:06 brent_: There have been a number of issues. This is our list (in IRC). 16:05:07 present+ manu 16:05:14 kdeangs1 has joined #vcwg 16:05:31 brent_: Our first issue is issue #20. 16:05:32 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-wg-charter/issues/20 16:05:54 brent_: External orgs. This was addressed in PR #26 which I've merged after getting feedback on it. 16:05:55 q+ 16:06:17 ack manu 16:06:20 brent_: It adds the open badges, the ISO committee for the mDL, it also adds the ISO committed for other mDL work. 16:06:33 I raised PR 31 to add ecosystem support work for mDL: https://github.com/w3c/vc-wg-charter/pull/31 16:06:36 manu: A quick note. I raised PR #31 to add ecosystem support for mDL. 16:07:05 manu: We had, in the Credentials CG, we had an individual from the ISO WG do a presentation, Andrew Hughes. We also announced that we have an interoperability test suite for mDL. 16:07:39 manu: That conversation has been kicked off, this PR adds a non-normative work item to work on VC data models and data guidance and uses mDL as an example. It basically says we may put out non-normative guidance that helps interop in general. 16:07:45 brent_: Thank you, Manu. 16:08:00 brent_: Folks should check out that PR, it's very straightforward, it adds a line of potential deliverables there. 16:08:32 brent_: I guess the question with this issue #20 ... I was hoping to hear back from Kristina -- everything she said she wanted has now been put into the charter so I think we can close this. 16:08:35 DavidC has joined #vcwg 16:08:38 brent_: Is anyone opposed to that? 16:08:44 present+ 16:08:55 brent_: Not hearing any opposition, so I'll close the issue over the meeting once the notes are in on that. 16:09:02 brent_: Issue #21 is the next one to chat about. 16:09:05 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-wg-charter/issues/21 16:09:31 q+ 16:09:37 brent_: VC LDI work to happen. We haven't heard from Mike Jones on this in almost 2 weeks. We don't know if there's much we can do at this point but hope to hear on this. 16:09:39 ack manu 16:10:30 manu: One thing to mention here is that I think that by calling it Linked Data Integrity, we are communicating the wrong thing. The first wrong thing is that you have to use Linked Data to use the data integrity portions. Or rather, that the stuff we're working on don't require LD -- at least the data integrity portions. You can shove a JWT in somewhere and sign it. 16:11:26 q+ 16:11:29 manu: The "LDI" spec right now does not require you to do canonicalization based on LD, you can use non-LD canonicalization mechanisms such as JCS. You can choose not to canonicalize at all, and therefore there are variations that have nothing to do with LD. I'm wondering if we should rename the work to VC data integrity / data integrity. 16:11:46 ack ivan 16:11:48 manu: Plus all of the arguments that have been made to date. That may not be compelling to make but it's another angle we can take. 16:12:06 q+ 16:12:17 ivan: That's fine, but as far as I remember, the charter text itself refers to the RDF canonicalization work which is planned to be done, etc. It's not only the title, but the whole description that's there in the draft charter that has to be adapted, I think. 16:12:22 ack manu 16:13:02 manu: I agree, Ivan. I think the description right now is misleading. We may want to mention JCS as well, which is already an IETF RFC as another canonicalization mechanism. I'm happy to take an action to try and reword it before we have buy in from the group that this is a direction that the group is comfortable with. 16:13:04 q+ 16:13:09 ack DavidC 16:13:40 q+ 16:13:42 q- 16:13:56 DavidC: Obviously, I'm one of the proponents of not using LD, so I would be imposed to *only* working on LDI, that's too narrow a scope. Just like version 1 of the data model allowed both LD and non-LD, the work should continue in that vein and make it clear that we're doing so. 16:14:42 DavidC: I want VC to get world wide take up. I want the barriers to world wide take up to be as low as possible. We should support non-LD because that has a lower barrier to take up and leads to greater success of this WG overall. 16:14:46 q+ to support non-linked data 16:14:53 brent_: Anything else on this issue? 16:14:54 ack rgrant 16:14:54 rgrant, you wanted to support non-linked data 16:15:06 rgrant: I also support not drawing in LD where it isn't absolutely necessary to VCs. That's all. 16:15:13 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-wg-charter/issues/24 16:15:44 q+ 16:15:45 brent_: We talked about this issue during our last meeting, Orie made some comments, still no response from Mike Jones. Any recommendations on how to move this issue forward? 16:15:49 ack manu 16:16:21 manu: I think we should close the issue. People want to talk about this, work is proceeding, Mike needs to make the case for why the non-normative version of this needs to be out of scope, why we can't talk about it at all. It's a strange ask. 16:16:39 +1 to pending close, we need a response. 16:16:40 brent_: We could put a pending close label on it and ping Mike Jones and see if he can respond to the feedback and make his case. Any opposition to that? 16:17:04 dlongley: +1 to that approach. 16:17:32 brent_: If we still haven't heard from Mike the next time we meet we can close it. 16:17:41 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-wg-charter/issues/25 16:18:15 q+ to support the change and note that I think it resolves the issue. 16:18:24 ack manu 16:18:24 manu, you wanted to support the change and note that I think it resolves the issue. 16:18:27 brent_: Issue #25 is about the specific style of supporting infrastructure. I altered my PR so that it brought in Ted's suggestions. I pulled the PR in after getting that feedback. So now the charter says it's out of scope for us to mandate to any specific style of infrastructure as a DLT. 16:18:35 manu: +1 to the change. It makes it very specific what we're talking about there. 16:18:49 manu: We may want to spell out DLT or link to it because people may not know what it means, but great job. 16:19:05 brent_: I will go ahead and say we believe this has been addressed and close the issue. Any opposition? 16:19:11 brent_: Hearing none. 16:19:36 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-wg-charter/issues/30 16:20:06 brent_: This is from Kyle Den Hartog. I don't think we've looked at this yet -- Kyle not on the call too early for his timezone. 16:20:07 q+ 16:20:37 q+ 16:20:48 Kevin: This is going to be difficult. Verifying the content ... the business process can be radically different from one to the next. He is talking about common validation. Talking about driver's licenses and the like. 16:20:50 ack manu 16:21:29 manu: I agree with what Kevin just said. I am a bit confused because he jumps between verification and validation patterns. He says standardize verification processes but at the very bottom he says he'd like common validation patterns standardized. And verification and validation are not the same. 16:22:02 manu: Right now the spec has a list of things to do for verification like check the signature and credential status. I think we need to ask Kyle if he's talking about verification or business process validation the latter of which we can't do. 16:22:03 ack DavidC 16:22:43 DavidC: I totally agree that we're only talking about verification and not about validation. This has come up in the presentation exchange group -- which is that one of the components is that you can check the policy before checking any proof. I am strongly for always checking a proof before checking any policy. 16:22:51 +1 to what DavidC just said -- check the signature first before doing any processing. 16:22:53 DavidC: Proof checking should be the number 1 to lower the attack surface. 16:23:13 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-wg-charter/issues/22 16:23:41 brent_: I created a PR and merged it. It adds a single line about adding errata to make that in scope. 16:23:50 brent_: I assert #22 can be closed. Any objection? 16:23:53 +1, agree the PR fixed the issue. 16:24:06 brent_: Not hearing objections, only support. 16:24:09 brent_: Closing it. 16:25:15 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-wg-charter/issues/19 16:25:23 brent_: Final issue for today is #19. Standardization of multilingual support. 16:25:34 brent_: There's a recent conversation. 16:25:40 q+ 16:25:56 brent_: Shigeya made some new comments. 16:26:00 q+ to say ooh, this is interesting 16:26:06 brent_: It's still not exactly clear what he's looking for regarding changes to the charter. 16:26:11 ack ivan 16:26:50 ivan: I scanned through what he wrote to try to understand it. He gave some answer there. I think the idea ... first of all is that what he says is JSON-LD is great and it works and there is no problem there. The example he has, for others who may not have ready it... if you take an environment on iOS/Android... 16:27:16 ivan: There are standard ways to handle localizations of applications where the translation of terms are not built into the system but are stored in some well-agreed place and the app can use that to translate and localize. 16:27:55 ack manu 16:27:55 manu, you wanted to say ooh, this is interesting 16:27:58 ivan: There seems to be some formats there and Shigeya is just asking to look into that mechanism and incorporate into VC. I'm not saying I understand all the technical details there but essentially making the translations of a VC instance and using some system features rather than build in what JSON-LD does. 16:28:02 q+ 16:28:37 manu: My read is the exact same, I think, as Ivan's. It's a super interesting way of solving the problem. My expectation is that it would result in the VC data model called like "translation file" and we'd have to figure out if we use content hashes there. I'd say that whole discussion falls into the VC 2.0 work. 16:28:51 q+ to ask about json-ld context localization and framing 16:28:56 ack DavidC 16:28:57 manu: We should discuss it. We have the ability to have the discussions because the 2.0 work is contemplating new features that people feel are needed in the ecosystem and this is one of those. 16:29:22 q+ 16:29:23 q+ to ask what concrete changes need to be made to the charter 16:29:29 DavidC: This is an issue we're already discussing in our company as well and it's timely. I wonder if we can put into the scope of the next WG to consider internationalization and maybe outside of the scope of JSON-lD> 16:29:40 s/JSON-lD>/JSON-LD/ 16:29:45 ack cel 16:29:45 cel, you wanted to ask about json-ld context localization and framing 16:29:57 Kevin: I'd very much like to see that, this is for everyone, not just the English-speaking world. 16:30:11 cel: I wonder if JSON-LD context files and framing could be helpful here, but I'm not sure how that would translate to JWT. 16:30:12 ack ivan 16:30:44 ivan: Maybe to answer Charles, my feeling is that the answer is that it is very different. I think the idea is not to localize the terms we use within the VC in the vocab, whatever is in the context, but it's more whatever has effectual meaning should be localized when you display things. 16:30:56 ivan: It's more to do maybe with the user interface for the VC than the VC itself. 16:31:03 Agree with Ivan. 16:31:24 ivan: The only thing we should do at this point is to ask Shigeya to give us a very specific PR or comment into the charter text and that's it. I think we clearly agree that something like that is important. 16:31:24 ack brent_ 16:31:24 brent_, you wanted to ask what concrete changes need to be made to the charter 16:31:29 ivan: He should help us formalize it. 16:31:43 thanks 16:31:56 brent_: So it sounds like we need to make sure that Shigeya knows we are in support of these ideas and we are looking forward to a PR to the charter to bring it into scope. 16:32:10 q+ 16:32:16 ack ivan 16:32:28 q+ to also ask some questions about review of Charter. 16:33:03 subtopic: charter review 16:33:04 ivan: So, I'm wondering about ... its administrative. For the time being, we're doing this discussion about the charter somewhat under the radar. We have suspended the process and haven't formally announced to the AC and we've said this isn't the formal vote and we haven't done this step. 16:33:43 ivan: I don't know how long we should and can keep this under the radar status. If I am on a team, as soon as my team is used for a rechartering exercise I need to report it back to the AC. 16:33:47 ack manu 16:33:47 manu, you wanted to also ask some questions about review of Charter. 16:34:02 https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-forum/2021OctDec/0179.html 16:34:09 manu: I think we should pass this charter by the organizations through the W3C that statistically object to charters the most -- and we have that data now. 16:34:17 This highlights the organizations that statistically object to charters the most at W3C: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-forum/2021OctDec/0179.html 16:34:42 q+ 16:34:50 manu: We want feed back on potential formal objections. 16:35:04 ack ivan 16:35:10 manu: We should say we're going to put this out very soon and we want to know if people will formally object so we can have those discussions. 16:35:38 ivan: At this point they would not and could not object to the charter. I'm not sure that's the right way to do it, the next step is to inform the AC we're working on this and it's information for the membership as a whole. 16:35:42 q+ to underscore "are you going to FO..." 16:36:02 Agree with Ivan on his steps... but then reach out directly. 16:36:10 ivan: I may misunderstand you -- but if you're saying before we do this we contact them and my feeling is the opposite. We publish on the AC forum and then we can of course, based on that, reach out to specific companies. 16:36:12 ack manu 16:36:12 manu, you wanted to underscore "are you going to FO..." 16:36:26 manu: I agree with your steps, Ivan. I do think that we have this data now, we should just reach out. 16:36:40 ivan: I am fine with that once we are sort of public with this. 16:36:58 manu: I think the question you're asking about is about timeline. Do we wait for DID FOs to be done or do it in parallel? 16:37:39 ivan: My problem is that this community is relatively small, and David and Kevin are the only members that aren't members of the DID WG -- and none of you others can clone themselves, so having the two WGs in parallel is a problem. So we have a dependency based on people available. 16:38:05 ivan: That being said, the community knowing about it is more valuable than keeping it secret. Doing it before Christmas doesn't make any sense, but we should probably do it in January if we decide to do it. 16:38:06 Agree with Ivan (again). 16:38:19 q+ to suggest early January. 16:38:37 brent_: Ok, we can craft something saying we're working on this and send that out in January and then we can make sure to reach out to specific companies to get feedback at their earliest convenience. 16:38:42 ack manu 16:38:42 manu, you wanted to suggest early January. 16:38:55 manu: I suggest we do it in early January, not late. The announcement to the AC that a charter is in progress that is. 16:40:09 ivan: I had a text that I was thinking about sending to the AC -- I can send it to you, Brent, and you and Wayne and I can agree on a draft from there. 16:40:24 Topic: Review PRs 16:40:30 q+ 16:40:32 https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22v1.1+%28editorial%29%22+sort%3Aupdated-asc 16:40:42 https://github.com/w3c/vc-wg-charter/pull/31 16:41:00 ack manu 16:41:11 manu: The text is terrible, I think it needs to be updated. What I think we're trying to express here is that, in a non-normative way, the WG would like to give some kind of concrete guidance on things that happen during the lifetime of the WG. 16:41:42 manu: For example, how do we achieve real interop with ISO mDL -- that's something that we can write about, create test suites around and do work around, if there are people that are willing to do that work in the WG. It's helpful to say we are getting to the point where we care about market vertical interop happening. 16:42:16 manu: And we may decide to pick some of that up during the WG if we can help interop. That's the intent of the line item, it's just really long. I tried to make it about VC data models and implementation guidance in support of market vertical interop and give an example of mDL. 16:42:49 brent_: We'll be covering Manu's charter PR and then go into the VC data model PRs. 16:43:26 brent_: Any feedback for Manu on this addition to the charter right now? 16:44:01 brent_: Unless someone wants to add themselves to the queue right now we're going to skip the subtitle one. 16:44:12 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/847 16:44:58 brent_: Raised by Kyle, adding a section to differentiate between contexts and credential schemas. This adds a section to the informative appendix that says here's the base context and some text around what the difference is between a context and a schema. 16:45:17 q+ 16:45:21 DavidC: I haven't read it yet, apologies. 16:45:22 ack manu 16:45:30 brent_: No worries, it's only been a couple of days, everyone read it and give feedback. 16:45:38 manu: I think it's a good thing to put in the spec and it's purely editorial. 16:45:49 brent_: It looked good to me on my first glance through as well. I encourage folks to give feedback on that one. 16:46:00 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/829 16:46:32 brent_: Clarification on verifiability. This has had some back and forth for a little while. I believe all the requested changes have been addressed at this point. Charles, can you give a current status on this PR? 16:46:56 cel: Sure, I believe I have addressed the changes requested. I added an additional part to link to the evidence section. It's in a normative section, but it's just making it into a term definition, that's all. 16:47:12 brent_: Any other feedback? Several approvals ... it seems like something we could merge now. 16:47:22 brent_: Any opposition to merging now? Plenty of time to review and respond to it. 16:47:33 brent_: Hearing no objections. I'll leave that to you to do, Manu. 16:47:53 brent_: That's the PRs. We have 13 minutes left so we might actually touch on some issues today. 16:47:59 Topic: Triage Issues 16:48:06 https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+-label%3Av2.0+-label%3A%22v1.1+%28editorial%29%22+sort%3Aupdated-asc 16:48:07 brent_: I believe we have one issue to triage today. 16:48:29 brent_: We're looking to determine if this is v1.1 or v2.0. 16:48:45 q+ 16:48:52 ack manu 16:48:55 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/848 16:49:06 brent_: Clarify what an appropriate VC/VP is. The type information is used to determine if a provided VC/VP is appropriate. The issue is looking for clarification on what appropriate means. 16:49:16 manu: Should be 1.1 editorial. 16:49:28 dlongley: +1 to editorial 1.1 16:49:48 brent_: Does anyone in the group want to have themselves assigned to do a PR to add text? 16:50:07 DavidC: I'll do it. 16:50:14 q+ about #829/#751 16:50:33 ack about 16:50:38 ack # 16:51:03 cel: Thanks, I was just wondering regarding about PRs #829 / #751 ... I'm wondering how to hear back. 16:51:14 manu: We will ping the person and ask if our merge addressed their concern. 16:51:23 cel: Ok. 16:51:34 Topic: v1.1 Issues 16:51:41 https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3A%22v1.1+%28editorial%29%22+sort%3Aupdated-asc 16:52:02 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/721 16:52:35 manu: I just requested as status update from Dave Lehn on that one. 16:52:40 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/838 16:52:50 brent_: Manu raised this -- can you give an update? 16:53:15 manu: I did this, but I still haven't applied David Chadwick's request for a comment about using one JWT mechanism over the other. I'll put an update in here, it's not done yet, it will be when I implement David's request. 16:53:24 subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/734 16:53:48 brent_: Have fields for locale-specific information been checked ... assigned to Dmitri. It seems once a month we talk about this. I'm not sure anything's happening to move it forward. 16:53:57 brent_: We'll send another ping to Dmitri. 16:53:57 q+ 16:54:10 ack ivan 16:54:54 q+ 16:54:58 q+ 16:54:58 ivan: So, I am not even sure I understand what it being asked. I realize addresses are very different from one place to another. If I take a VC with names and addresses ... those vocabs are external vocabs and the VC is just the framework. If I'm well informed. This WG, I don't think this WG can do anything here. 16:55:03 q+ 16:55:04 ack kdeangs1 16:55:06 q+ 16:55:20 ack kdeangs 16:55:26 kdeangs1: I would agree with that. GS1 went through a long and tedious process standardizing address for international shipping purposes. It's not our job to do that sort of thing in this group. 16:55:26 ack manu 16:55:32 manu: Same. 16:55:37 ack DavidC 16:56:02 DavidC: Is it correct that the examples are non-normative. So then -- that sort of resolves the issue in a way? If we just say these are non-normative examples? 16:56:10 ack TallTed 16:56:29 q+ to remind of the fix 16:56:35 TallTed: Yeah, I think that they weren't looking to see if this was in scope for us, it's just something that caught their eye and the examples are broken into, I think, US normative formats. If we just use name and address and nothing else it's easy to fix. 16:56:35 ack brent_ 16:56:35 brent_, you wanted to remind of the fix 16:56:50 brent_: I believe the fix we settled on was to alter the examples to make them more general. 16:56:56 brent_: Beyond that I don't think we needed to do anything. 16:57:09 q+ 16:57:22 ack ivan 16:57:24 TallTed: I don't think that this flag was about us changing vocabs in any way. Internationalization looks at things that are normally i18n concerns and if we make the examples more generic they become non-concerns. 16:57:49 ivan: I don't disagree with anything said, but I think Addison and Richard deserve an explicit answer and we say it's not the WG's job to do the vocab parts. 16:57:50 q+ 16:57:56 ack manu 16:58:37 manu: I'm scanning through the entire spec for where we use addresses. We have one example in C6 where a holder is using a non-i18n address field and we can fix that. We have been using schema.org because we know it has been through a massive i18n effort. 16:59:02 manu: One example is a good example, another is not. We'll tell them that we'll fix the bad one and clarify that we don't work on address formats in the group. 16:59:07 +1 to manu 16:59:20 brent_: We are still looking to Dmitri to raise a PR to fix that one example. 16:59:35 brent_: Any other opinions? 17:00:12 brent_: Ok, very last question: I still plan on holding a meeting next Wednesday, but not meeting after that until January. Are folks planning on being into the swing of things on the 5th or should we do the 12th? 17:00:15 Hold off until the 12th please :) 17:00:18 12th 17:00:29 brent_: Ok, we will hold off until the 12th, see you next week. 17:00:39 rrsagent, draft minutes 17:00:39 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/12/08-vcwg-minutes.html ivan 17:00:48 brent_: Thanks to the scribe and to everyone for all your efforts. 17:01:34 zakim, end meeting 17:01:34 As of this point the attendees have been ivan, brent, cel, tallted, dlongley, davidc, kevind, rgrant, manu 17:01:37 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 17:01:37 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2021/12/08-vcwg-minutes.html Zakim 17:01:40 I am happy to have been of service, ivan; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye 17:01:44 Zakim has left #vcwg 17:01:50 rrsagent, bye 17:01:50 I see no action items