22:01:37 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #vcwg-special
22:01:41 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/04/11-vcwg-special-irc
22:01:41 <mprorock> present+
22:01:45 <markus_sabadello> markus_sabadello has joined #vcwg-special
22:01:48 <brent> zakim, start the meeting
22:01:48 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
22:01:50 <Zakim> please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), brent
22:02:08 <kristina_> kristina_ has joined #vcwg-special
22:02:09 <Kerri_Lemoie> Kerri_Lemoie has joined #vcwg-special
22:02:13 <brent> meeting: Verifiable Credentials Working Group special topic call
22:02:15 <Kerri_Lemoie> present+
22:02:21 <kristina_> present+
22:02:22 <brent> chair: Kristina Yasuda
22:02:28 <selfissued> selfissued has joined #vcwg-special
22:02:34 <manu> present+
22:02:39 <selfissued> present+
22:03:13 <brent> brent has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/9ff74350-6398-41c5-a5d3-11cd54558218/20230411T180000
22:03:18 <decentralgabe> decentralgabe has joined #vcwg-special
22:03:22 <shigeya> present+
22:03:24 <brent> brent has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2023-11-4: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/9ff74350-6398-41c5-a5d3-11cd54558218/20230411T180000
22:03:26 <decentralgabe> present+
22:03:33 <brent> present+
22:03:52 <mprorock> scribe+
22:04:42 <mprorock> kristina_: Discussing agenda - go through issues, find assignments to help guide the work
22:04:43 <kristina_> Topic: issue asignment
22:04:46 <kristina_> https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+sort%3Aupdated-asc+no%3Aassignee
22:05:01 <kristina_> q?
22:05:07 <dlehn> present+
22:05:09 <mprorock> ... will go one by one down the issues
22:05:22 <kristina_> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/860
22:05:41 <mprorock> ... "Determine interoperable way for Holder to make claims directly in VPs"
22:05:48 <mprorock> ... opened by Joe
22:06:07 <mprorock> ... currently labeled discuss
22:06:12 <kristina_> q?
22:06:21 <Orie> Orie has joined #vcwg-special
22:06:47 <Orie> present+
22:07:23 <markus_sabadello> present+
22:07:27 <mprorock> JoeAndrieu: The notion of this issue is that right now the only way to handle this is for holders to extend the model on their own, but no interoperable and normative way.  also possible to embed a VC, but no standard way of having a VC referencing a VP
22:08:08 <mprorock> ... thought was to add a property to the VP like "holder claims" to attach this in and sign it just like you do normally
22:08:15 <TallTed> TallTed has joined #vcwg-special
22:08:35 <mprorock> kristina_: question for this call - is there a resolution, or an assignment to take it on
22:08:44 <mprorock> JoeAndrieu: volunteers to take the issue on
22:09:19 <kristina_> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/1020
22:09:42 <mprorock> kristina_: "Clarification on when a credentialRefresh service should be used" - this is a question with some attempts at an answer
22:10:10 <kristina_> q?
22:10:13 <manu> q+
22:10:13 <mprorock> ... is this suitable for pending close tag? or is discussion still going on
22:10:25 <kristina_> ack manu
22:10:51 <mprorock> manu: on the fence about this - have a proposal to move credential refresh to a property - will assert two implementations
22:10:59 <TallTed> TallTed has changed the topic to: Meeting Agenda 2023-04-11: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/9ff74350-6398-41c5-a5d3-11cd54558218/20230411T180000
22:11:08 <mprorock> ... maybe we do something about this if credentialRefresh stays in specification
22:11:37 <mprorock> ... PR is #1082
22:12:27 <kristina_> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/937
22:12:43 <Orie> q+
22:12:46 <mprorock> kristina_: "Presentations SHOULD expire" opened by orie
22:12:57 <mprorock> ... *reads bits of the issue*
22:13:13 <kristina_> ack orie
22:13:33 <mprorock> Orie: notes that the only normative requirements for a VP are that it must have a context and a type
22:14:34 <mprorock> ... current understanding (of speaker) is that they are either 1) syntactic sugar, or 2) unsecured semantic wrapper - not sure if intended to be secure, and if intended to be secure then there should be an expiration
22:15:04 <mprorock> ... basically don't stumble on a presentation 1yr after creation and then trust it
22:15:24 <manu> q+ to note that they're all those things, and sometimes if the WG can't say more, they shouldn't.
22:15:24 <mprorock> ... feels like VPs have not had sufficient loving and polish
22:15:52 <mprorock> kristina_: asks if anyone is willing to follow up on the issue to get it ready for PR
22:16:21 <Kerri_Lemoie> q+
22:16:22 <Orie> I don't see the value of Verifiable Presentations, they seem harmful and unrestricted.
22:16:27 <mprorock> Orie: notes that he is not sure how to handle anything related to VPs since seldom discussed
22:16:28 <kristina_> ack manu
22:16:28 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to note that they're all those things, and sometimes if the WG can't say more, they shouldn't.
22:16:40 <TallTed> present+
22:17:06 <mprorock> manu: VPs are used as noted by Orie - don't feel like there is clear guidance to be made by the WG at this time - perhaps we say nothing
22:17:30 <mprorock> ... would be nice to talk about this, discuss ephemeral nature, etc - but we likely have more important fish to fry
22:17:31 <Orie> IMO it is leading to very bad interop issues, nobody is implementing meaningful interoperability from the spec, since the spec only says they are JSON-LD.
22:17:45 <mprorock> ... happy to let it expire for now unless someone feels strongly about it
22:17:52 <JoeAndrieu> q+ to ask if we have implementations?
22:17:57 <kristina_> ack Kerri_Lemoie
22:18:19 <mprorock> Kerri_Lemoie: agrees with orie and manu - need some work to even understand what VPs are
22:18:38 <selfissued_> selfissued_ has joined #vcwg-special
22:18:42 <selfissued_> present+
22:18:50 <mprorock> ... understands need for a container - have seen external containers defined bc of a lack of desire to use VPs because of lack of understanding
22:18:56 <kristina_> ack JoeAndrieu
22:18:56 <Zakim> JoeAndrieu, you wanted to ask if we have implementations?
22:19:11 <mprorock> JoeAndrieu: asks if we have multiple implementations of an expiration in VPs?
22:19:11 <Orie> q+
22:19:25 <mprorock> ... i think they are ephemeral and should be short lived
22:19:34 <kristina_> ack Orie
22:19:37 <mprorock> ... thinks we can't add an expiry without impls
22:20:10 <manu> q+
22:20:21 <mprorock> Orie: notes that he has never seen an expiration and that there is a lot of copy paste, and addition of terms at will, or use of a DI proof, which just adds a proof and no expiry
22:20:35 <kristina_> ack manu
22:20:42 <mprorock> ... concerned that way things are written implies that we intend for VPs not to expire
22:20:53 <mprorock> manu: wants to know if this is causing interop issues?
22:21:05 <mprorock> ... if not, let's move onto things causing interop
22:21:51 <mprorock> kristina_: volunteers to try and get some thoughts on this and perhaps / hopefully lead to a resolve - think there is a need to address security/expiry/etc
22:21:54 <Orie> There are no interop issues with VPs since they have no "requirements"... You can't have meaningful interop other than implementing conformance to JSON-LD 1.1, with VPs...
22:21:57 <kristina_> q?
22:22:16 <kristina_> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/995
22:22:54 <mprorock> kristina_: "[Terminology] claim" - this is about what does a "claim" mean, is the definition clear and precise to what the WG means
22:22:57 <selfissued_> q+
22:22:59 <Orie> is "claim" what we used to call "credential"?
22:23:07 <kristina_> ack selfissued_
22:23:29 <kristina_> @Orie, I think so - "An assertion made about a subject."
22:23:44 <Orie> See https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4949 for "claim" and "credential".
22:23:51 <mprorock> selfissued_: the term claim has industry definitions in RFC4949 and OIDC (possibly borrowed from ISO) - if we are going to tweak, we should align with industry usage
22:23:53 <mprorock> 1+
22:23:56 <mprorock> q+
22:24:02 <manu> scribe+
22:24:11 <kristina_> ack mprorock
22:24:49 <manu> mprorock: I cannot echo a strong enough plus-whatever to whatever Mike said - there are industry meanings for "claims" and "credentials", we should align our stuff with that, because it causes severe confusion when we're looking at discussions w/ NIST and put profiles/guidance around this.
22:25:12 <TallTed> q+ to say that "credentials" are made up of one or more "claims" (a/k/a assertions). They are not the same.
22:25:15 <manu> mprorock: Anyone providing guidance around use cases, the word used in VC WG doesn't match definitions in other places... let's try to align with IETF, then ISO, then others.
22:25:20 <kristina_> ack TallTed
22:25:20 <Zakim> TallTed, you wanted to say that "credentials" are made up of one or more "claims" (a/k/a assertions). They are not the same.
22:25:36 <mprorock> TallTed: to answer orie's question in the chat - claims are not what we used to call credentials
22:25:50 <mprorock> ... claims are sometimes called assertions and vice versa
22:26:04 <mprorock> ... and a credential is one or more claims grouped together
22:26:22 <mprorock> kristina_: clarification needed potentially since it is such an important topic
22:26:56 <mprorock> selfissued_: reluctantly volunteers
22:27:16 <kristina_> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/1012
22:27:36 <mprorock> kristina_: Need to clarify the nature of the media type in relationship to "credential" vs "verifiable-credential" - was this resolved?
22:27:42 <dlongley> +1 to the idea that this is resolved
22:28:25 <mprorock> Orie: agrees that this has been resolved
22:28:33 <mprorock> JoeAndrieu: suggests to move past this
22:28:58 <mprorock> kristina_: cheers on closing issue
22:29:01 <kristina_> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/914
22:29:12 <Orie> q+
22:29:12 <brent> q+ to ask about duplicate
22:29:19 <kristina_> ack Orie
22:29:27 <mprorock> kristina_: "Dereferencing relative to issuer" - We should add guidance somewhere regarding dereferencing relative to an issuer.
22:29:47 <mprorock> Orie: believes Data Integrity has solved for this and that VC-JWT has not
22:29:50 <Orie> For the record, this is resolved for data integrity
22:29:51 <Orie> https://w3c.github.io/vc-data-integrity/#retrieve-verification-method
22:30:36 <kristina_> ack brent
22:30:36 <Zakim> brent, you wanted to ask about duplicate
22:30:45 <mprorock> Orie: this is a fundamental issue - data integrity defining this in DI spec implies this issue should be closed in favor of solving in VC-JWT
22:30:54 <dlongley> +1 to brent
22:31:00 <mprorock> brent: feels like this is open elsewhere and should be closed here
22:31:34 <mprorock> kristina_: good. closed.
22:31:52 <kristina_> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/952
22:32:31 <mprorock> kristina_: "Proposal: Chaining VCs via links and digests" - have discussed, prior issues, don't think we ever saw a PR
22:32:45 <mprorock> ... reads from issue
22:32:54 <kristina_> q?
22:33:03 <mprorock> q?
22:33:15 <mprorock> q+
22:33:29 <mprorock> kristina_: could attach pending close
22:33:37 <kristina_> ack mprorock
22:33:57 <manu> mprorock: Let's either close or mark pending close, it's a complicated enough issue that coming in right before feature freeze is problematic.
22:34:15 <manu> mprorock: I'm not disputing the value of it, just question whether it's pragmatic to get consensus and get it done in time.
22:34:17 <Orie> AFAIK, data integrity already added support for it
22:34:24 <Orie> and it was not discussed in great detail
22:34:31 <Orie> q+
22:34:33 <mprorock> kristina_: any objections to pending close?
22:34:38 <kristina_> ack Orie
22:34:54 <manu> q+
22:35:00 <mprorock> Orie: suspects personal hallucination, but thought id was present in proof, and id facilitates possible chaining
22:35:05 <kristina_> ack manu
22:35:25 <mprorock> manu: did add id for proof chaining, but this is chaining VCs, not proofs - not this issue
22:35:32 <Orie> This seems like "evidence"
22:35:41 <mprorock> kristina_: marking pending close lacking objections
22:35:58 <kristina_> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/758
22:36:08 <Orie> q+
22:36:16 <mprorock> kristina_: "Fix the vc-data-model namespace with https://www.w3.org/ns/vc/v2"
22:36:18 <kristina_> ack Orie
22:36:42 <mprorock> Orie: this is a very old issue, suggest close - lots of back and forth with manu/ivan - have since added ns context, etc
22:37:03 <manu> +1 to close
22:37:16 <mprorock> ... continued to add new terms to iri space (2018) and we will be stuck there like IRIs and that is best we can do with RDF
22:37:39 <mprorock> kristina_: ok to close?
22:38:06 <mprorock> *misc discussion around if you opened it you can close it*
22:38:34 <mprorock> brent: notes that objection to closing on call is only to do with tooling
22:38:54 <kristina_> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/1018
22:39:11 <mprorock> kristina_: "Remove requirement for JWT (etc.) support from VC 2.0 & only support Linked Data" is the issue...
22:39:17 <kristina_> q?
22:39:26 <manu> +1 to close, since we won't get consensus on it.
22:39:28 <decentralgabe> decentralgabe has joined #vcwg-special
22:39:39 <mprorock> JoeAndrieu: suggests pending close
22:39:49 <mprorock> ... does not think we will get consensus
22:40:28 <mprorock> kristina_: marking pending close for now
22:40:41 <kristina_> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/1029
22:40:51 <Orie> q+
22:40:58 <kristina_> ack Orie
22:41:00 <mprorock> kristina_: "Add examples of JSON-LD Framing"
22:41:05 <manu> q+
22:41:28 <mprorock> Orie: when the JSON-LD context is applied, and then removed all that remains is n-quads - and the n-quads is the canonical representaiton
22:42:06 <mprorock> ... mostly applies to data integrity, but also applies when working with more general RDF / JSON-LD tooling and the data model as RDF
22:42:37 <mprorock> ... you will eventually find term definitions in the graph depending on how far and deep you process the graph
22:43:35 <mprorock> ... seems like defining JSON-LD behavior is not really a focus of this group, but bc we have defined as JSON-LD we should touch on some of these items in the right place
22:43:41 <manu> q+ to move this to a better place.
22:43:52 <mprorock> ... perhaps in an implementation guide, perhaps in the data integrity
22:44:12 <mprorock> ... thinks it is odd that we spend a lot of time on the RDF mode, but then don't demonstrate
22:44:17 <kristina_> ack manu
22:44:17 <Zakim> manu, you wanted to move this to a better place.
22:44:17 <mprorock> q+
22:44:47 <mprorock> manu: agree with orie's statement around moving this to a better place - sure let's talk about framing, but in the right place
22:45:07 <mprorock> ... don't think we can talk about framing in the core data model in a general way
22:45:09 <Orie> Framing generally speaking is a way to ask for specific claims, in an existing credential.
22:45:22 <mprorock> ... requires concrete examples
22:45:25 <Orie> it seems very relevant to the confusion over "claim", "credential" and "proof".
22:45:55 <mprorock> ... most people hopefully don't need to touch this stuff
22:45:58 <Orie> For example, you might use a "frame" to obtain a "proof".
22:46:00 <kristina_> ack mprorock
22:46:54 <dlongley> +1 to talk about framing VCs in BBS or VPs (to, e.g., merge claims across VCs about a single subject into one object) in the implementation guide
22:46:57 <manu> mprorock: I agree with the right place for this thing not being in core data model, and if you want to go down the JSON-LD thing, there's a lot of documentation around JSON-LD and RDF and those sorts of things. It might be beneficial to add good examples to an implementation guide -- someone has to do that work? Let's close this in favor, it belongs elsewhere.
22:47:08 <manu> +1 to mprorock ^
22:47:18 <mprorock> kristina_: would you be ok with closing if addressed elsewhere?
22:47:29 <mprorock> Orie: thinks we will have to address this in BBS
22:47:45 <mprorock> ... do not think that we can do BBS without this
22:48:07 <mprorock> ... thinks it is crazy that we spend all this time on JSON-LD and don't understand how it works
22:48:19 <kristina_> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/1037
22:48:46 <mprorock> kristina_: based this "nonTransferable property in v2.0?" question on an issue we closed
22:49:24 <mprorock> kristina_: asks for volunteers? pending close?
22:49:44 <mprorock> kristina_: yep - pending close
22:50:22 <kristina_> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/831
22:50:47 <mprorock> kristina_: suggests pending close on "Proposal: Anchored Resources and Hashlinks for VCs" as well
22:51:39 <mprorock> kristina_: ...
22:51:51 <mprorock> kristina_: going back to list for one more
22:51:59 <kristina_> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/1038
22:52:13 <mprorock> "Query on HashLinks"
22:52:14 <manu> q+
22:52:19 <kristina_> ack manu
22:52:55 <kristina_> subtopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/issues/1039
22:53:03 <Orie> q+
22:53:16 <kristina_> ack Orie
22:53:16 <mprorock> kristina_: "Add at least one unsigned properties" is the issue.... opened by joe
22:53:25 <mprorock> Orie: very much related to VPs
22:53:40 <JoeAndrieu> q+
22:53:52 <mprorock> ... you could use a VP as a json wrapper for additional info
22:54:19 <mprorock> ... in VCs we don't have the ability for an unprotected header like in COSE - don't even really have this in JOSE
22:54:36 <mprorock> ... seem to possibly be some use for unsecured properties
22:54:47 <kristina_> ack JoeAndrieu
22:55:32 <dlongley> q+
22:55:50 <Orie> the data integrity spec lets you define the suite, however you like... sounds like you are just talking about a "new data integrity proof" type.
22:56:00 <mprorock> JoeAndrieu: main mechanism desired is an object that is a VC for selective disclosure that permits signing over items outside of one or two that are not signed
22:56:20 <kristina_> ack dlongley
22:56:25 <mprorock> JoeAndrieu: note sure if belongs here or DI
22:56:34 <mprorock> dlongley: believes should be in data integrity
22:56:44 <mprorock> ... probably cryptosuite specific
22:57:03 <mprorock> ... we will want to avoid problems by learning from similar issues in the past
22:57:29 <mprorock> JoeAndrieu: volunteers for assignment, but requests assist from dlongley
22:57:48 <mprorock> kristina_: asks for objections to moving to data integrity?
22:58:02 <mprorock> Orie: notes ok with moving it
22:58:12 <mprorock> kristina_: OKs the move
22:58:36 <mprorock> kristina_: says that everyone is awesome and thanks for all being here - main call tomorrow
22:59:16 <kristina_> rrsagent, draft minutes
22:59:17 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/04/11-vcwg-special-minutes.html kristina_
22:59:32 <kristina_> zakim, end meeting
22:59:32 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been mprorock, Kerri_Lemoie, kristina_, manu, selfissued, shigeya, decentralgabe, brent, dlehn, Orie, markus_sabadello, TallTed, selfissued_
22:59:35 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
22:59:36 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/04/11-vcwg-special-minutes.html Zakim
22:59:41 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, kristina_; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
22:59:42 <Zakim> Zakim has left #vcwg-special
22:59:43 <kristina_> rrsagent, bye
22:59:43 <RRSAgent> I see no action items