22:02:40 RRSAgent has joined #vcwg-special 22:02:45 logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/05/23-vcwg-special-irc 22:02:55 Zakim has joined #vcwg-special 22:03:04 brent has changed the topic to: Agenda: https://www.w3.org/events/meetings/eaf86734-c2f9-410e-86b9-1cca18d0d6c9/20230523T180000 22:03:06 present+ dmitriz 22:03:09 zakim, start the meeting 22:03:10 RRSAgent, make logs Public 22:03:11 please title this meeting ("meeting: ..."), brent 22:03:16 meeting: VCWG Special Topic Call 22:03:19 chair: Brent Zundel 22:03:35 sam has joined #vcwg-special 22:03:43 decentralgabe has joined #vcwg-special 22:03:48 present+ 22:03:53 present+ 22:03:59 present+ 22:04:02 present+ 22:04:09 present+ 22:04:13 scribe+ 22:04:20 kristina has joined #vcwg-special 22:04:21 present+ 22:04:56 present+ 22:05:24 bV security and privacy researcher for confidentiality 22:05:38 chair observer 22:07:10 JoeAndrieu has joined #vcwg-special 22:07:39 BZ two pull requests 1000 1001 concrete changes conversations about resolution in Miami unless someone has new information that materially changes Miami object to any attempt to relitigate Miami. Resolution: restate miami. Base media type vc+json+ld transformation one and bi directional rules must be define but not necessarily by this working group 22:07:59 BZ context of this statement was not meant to be normative but guidance for WG moving forward. 22:08:05 s/1000/1100 22:08:11 s/1001/1101 22:08:12 can you post that resolution in IRC? 22:08:18 The Miami resolution URL is https://www.w3.org/2017/vc/WG/Meetings/Minutes/2023-02-16-vcwg#resolution1 22:09:19 BZ begin with 1101 22:09:20 suptopic: https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1101 22:09:22 Orie has joined #vcwg-special 22:09:25 present+ 22:09:56 BZ raised by Mike Jones but not on the call today. In absence of Mike is there someone who can give a summary of PR 22:10:10 https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1101 22:10:23 q+ 22:10:33 q+ 22:10:35 q- 22:11:17 q+ to explain request for correctly representing the point of "(defined by the VCWG)" 22:11:30 BZ this PR adds some non-normative guidance in added section for guidance for representation provided mapping between mapping and standard one. Takes the language of miani removes the normative text and puts it in spec as non-normative. 22:11:38 ack kgriffin 22:12:51 q+ to note that "transformation rules" without normative requirements puts us in a similar situation as to abstract extension points and DID Methods. 22:13:31 KG In terms of concrete changes I think PR is aiming to go in ratifying Miami is good but would like to see substantive guidance of what a transformation means (such as pr 1100 or section in DID method spec of what must a method do to be a DID method) if we are going down path of other representaitons we should provide more substantive guidance of If your are going to do this this is how you should do it. Give developers a path to emit compatiblee 22:13:58 KG there is not enough of that language in this spec 22:13:58 there could be more than one mapping per representation. so long as it maps back to the base data model 22:13:59 q+ 22:14:02 ack JoeAndrieu 22:14:02 JoeAndrieu, you wanted to explain request for correctly representing the point of "(defined by the VCWG)" 22:14:12 q+ to mention what was requested in my change request 22:14:16 s/KG/kgriffin 22:14:26 q- later 22:15:00 q+ to say what I understand (respond to Joe) 22:15:22 JA pretty important point in the resolution which to me is vital to scoping the maimi agreement. 1101 language reverses the scope of the miami resolution. As I mentioned on last call I don't think this is an appropriate representation either honest mistake or an attempt to rewrite miami. 22:15:23 -1 to Joe's interpretation of the resolution. 22:15:27 https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1101/files#r1183881906 22:15:30 BZ which specific language 22:15:37 s/JA/JoeAndrieu: 22:15:51 JA in chat is pull request with adding back language 22:16:03 JoeAndrieu 22:16:11 JoeAndiew: 22:16:12 s/JA/JoeAndrieu: 22:16:26 ack Orie 22:17:20 present+ 22:18:11 to be very clear, "(defined by the VCWG)" was added because we cannot control what happens outside VCWG. VCWG has no control what happens outside VCWG :) 22:18:13 Orie: I think Kevin summed it up. Supporters of pull request 1101 don't want to get into the buisness of giving normative requirements testablity. PR 1101 trys to say that people outside the WG can do it by mapping. Joe was correct that there was language that said if we define those mappings here we have to go into extra effort to do this. The other PR 1100 does add those extra teeth to cover in tests. ONe thought is that if the WG is not defini[CUT] 22:19:03 as long as the language that claims to represent the resolution includes that scope, we're good. the current language does not 22:19:04 Orie: what value does the language do. The only other one is the mapping in other work item I would rather not define that particular thing. But perhaps there is a shorter resolution that require a mapping. 22:19:09 ack dlongley 22:19:09 dlongley, you wanted to mention what was requested in my change request 22:20:12 DaveLongly: Had put in PR a while back a change before I could support PR to make sure we are clear what we expect from a mapping. The transformation rules must allow any instance to generally convert back to the base representiaiton. That case by case mapping a insufficient. 22:20:15 ack manu 22:20:15 manu, you wanted to note that "transformation rules" without normative requirements puts us in a similar situation as to abstract extension points and DID Methods. 22:20:45 yeah, hand crafted mappings have been a problem for us... they have been implemented in the jwt covid credentials, and other jwt implementations that diverge from eachother. 22:20:48 q+ 22:21:19 as brent said in a summary, miami resolution was not meant to have a normative text.. 22:22:07 Manu: My biggest concern about this PR 1101 is that it lacks any kind of normative statement. It informative that allows anyone to be compliant and there is no way for someone to vet if arbitrary transform is legitimate or not. There is one test that you could use. Such as if it results in the core data model. The what does ACDC gordian envelope need to define to transform. I says a bunch ofthings that should be said normatively in an informative way 22:22:56 ack brent 22:22:56 brent, you wanted to say what I understand (respond to Joe) 22:23:06 Manu: so it Strong arguments on both side. Having a hard time seeing how we cna reconcile these. and have normative guidance or we are going to talk about transformation in a completely non-normative way. Which I would object too as it doesnt help interopability 22:23:47 q+ to agree about transformation definition 22:24:07 q- 22:24:20 BrentZundel: My understanding is that the normative guidance is that it applied to things outside the WG I did not think it meant that it only applied to things exculisvely done by this WG. My understanding, this PR is a good faith representation of the Author (mike jones) understanding of Miami. 22:24:41 BrentZundel: chair hat back on. Lets continue to explore those directions forward. 22:24:43 ack JoeAndrieu 22:24:43 JoeAndrieu, you wanted to agree about transformation definition 22:25:42 +1 JoeAndrieu, we have too much on our plate... normative mappings, are too much for us to handle, and we have a track record of getting them wrong. 22:25:58 q? 22:26:06 JoeAndrieu: I agree in part with what you said, we do agree that other entities can define transformations. not a burden on this WG. My support specifically for that resolution is the scoping fo things we were doing. Important, I was th eone who asked for that language. I can accept that other people would prefer that other orgs be able to do this .Want to know how we can reconcile. 22:26:06 q+ to note comments are just about this PR (not attempting to relitigate, just trying to focus on the PRs). Focus on kgriffin. 22:26:12 ack manu 22:26:13 manu, you wanted to note comments are just about this PR (not attempting to relitigate, just trying to focus on the PRs). Focus on kgriffin. 22:26:17 q+ 22:26:21 q+ to wonder if we need "W3C Verifiable Credential compatible" language that could extend beyond our work here 22:26:36 ChristopherA has joined #vcwg-special 22:26:40 present+ 22:26:44 q? 22:27:11 Can someone share the PR? I'm remote today. 22:27:33 https://github.com/w3c/vc-data-model/pull/1101 22:28:06 Manu: the way I am looking at this I am not thinking about the resolution that much Clearly we have different interpretations of the resolution so I am looking at the two PRs . either we are going to non-normative -1 on that. or we are going to make normative statements. Prefere we write spec text that guides implementers. Kevin had a good questions. What is the minimum guidance we can all agree to as a group but as minimum it should be normative 22:28:34 +1 to Manu 22:28:36 q- 22:28:49 q+ 22:29:07 q+ to ask what is well defined, vc-specs dir? 22:29:10 Manu: the min guidance is you can call whatever you are doing as Compatible with w3c VC as long as after the transform you are compliant with the core data model using a normative transformation. Putting that up as straw man. As guidance to spec writers in other WG. 22:29:14 q+ 22:29:37 Manu: This gives normative guidance to other writers that gets to core data model 22:29:40 +1 to Manu's approach as a solution forward 22:29:51 q+ 22:30:13 BrentZundel: I heard statment with normative guidance if the result of that transform (summory) of Manu's comment. 22:30:31 BrentZundel: Joe Andreu would that work for you. 22:31:20 ack kristina 22:31:29 JoeAndriew: Anyone can say compatible its can they say its a VC w3cx VC. decide if it meets our standards. Giving some other org license to make a compliant w3c VC is wrong. 22:31:35 Yes, Joe's concern is correct... they can't call it a "W3C Verifiable Credential"... its more like "Can be transformed into a W3C VC" 22:32:33 q+ to note that what we accept from other WGs is different than what other WGs can do. 22:32:39 yes, but the point here is to provide guidance and a way for them to clearly indicate compatibility and get uptake on their representation, it's way for this group to just clearly tell others what needs to be done (even if it should be "known without guidance") 22:32:42 Kristina: Who is this group to dictate what other standards bodies do. We can only dictate what happens in this WG. we are pretty much at deadlock as I am against any normative statements and Manu wants to see normative statement. So how to move forward. bottome line that where I am right now. 22:32:44 ack Orie 22:34:12 we could turn vcdm into a vc-core spec like did-core, why not 22:34:39 Orie: Kevin mentioned did specs. Maybe thats alighned with what Manu is saying. Did WG says here are miniimum . Our spec becomes like the did core. that is a fundamentally untestable statement. YOu could create a regisgy and then the registry entry can assert they meet the spec. We could do the same for verifiable credentials. You could say that for a transform. But from a did core testablility there would not be any tests and there would be a burden 22:34:44 "turn vcdm into a vc-core spec like did-core" <-- very open to interpretation on what that means :) 22:35:12 Orie: to ensure conformance. And we did receive a lot of complaints around did method interoperability. But it is a potential minimal approach. 22:35:17 Yes, that's true Orie, and the downside of the proposal. 22:35:20 BrentZundel: 22:35:22 the base representation provides interop, i don't think there are red flags because of that. 22:35:23 ack kgriffin 22:35:23 kgriffin, you wanted to ask what is well defined, vc-specs dir? 22:37:20 KevinGriffin: I got on queue to agree with Manu to define normative language forward. in order to facilitate to help other create transformations. We are possibly naive in saying the w3c can exclusively say what is a vC. We are in a position to normatvley state what is possible to be what is a VC data model. We can relax how hard but there is a path forward. You can't call yourself a w3cvc unless you meet that test spec. Can we go to the VC spec [CUT] 22:37:41 KevinGriffin: is passinmg the test that transform loose enough 22:37:42 q+ to propose "Compatible with the W3C VC Ecosystem" and argue against "These are W3C VCs as well" 22:37:47 scribe+ 22:38:22 I'd hoping to speak before a poll. 22:38:33 sam: I was wondering if we could do a poll to get temperature -- spectrum of opinions and maybe Manu, Kevin, Orie, and Kristina are closer together than Joe? I'd like to see if we could try to get between two closest opinions? 22:38:48 ack sam 22:38:54 ack ChristopherA 22:39:01 BrentZundel: I think a poll would be a good idea. 22:39:06 q+ to propose removing vc+jwt from vc-jwt work item, and closing both open PRs. 22:40:55 ChrisAllen: three issues we are conflating. VC is not a trademarked term we cannot do anything about lowe case vc. In general they don't care about w3c and we maybe dont care about them. 2nd vc-acedc vc-gordian vc-jwt desire to have imprateur of VC ther eis a process which should be part of the registry process. I was dissappointed we did not get very far. we never got beyond provisional. We can do same with VCs. But in order to get it 22:41:29 s/ChrisAllen/ChristoperA 22:42:05 In order to "test it against VCDM base", we need normative statements... I agree w/ Christopher's "stage 3 maturity" thing as the way you can say you're "strongly compatible w/ the W3C VC Data Model" 22:42:23 This is sounding like it's going to be a big mountain of work :( 22:42:49 ChrisAllen: to get to next level we need something you can test it go make it more that provisional. But then anyone should be able to say that it passes the test. 3rd then once it passes a conformace test then it becomes an action item for group to change from passing test to conformant implementation. third big area I plan on my roadmap to make a transform of Gordian athat with corform with base set of testing tools. But I never paln on making [CUT] 22:42:55 We want to enable ACDC and Gordian and VC-JWT, but we also don't want folks to (easily) game what we're trying to enable. 22:43:20 +1 manu 22:43:38 If you produce vc+ld+json, you produce W3C VCs.... you don't need anything in our spec to say anything about this, and we especially don't need to review your testsuite. 22:43:50 also that ^ 22:43:55 ChrisAllen: I think gordian can do better can do more so the majority of gordian can be beyond the VC data model but if oen wants to use our libraries to accept a conformant subset. But I shouldn't be a second class citizen if I am able to pass conformance test. 22:44:07 ack manu 22:44:07 manu, you wanted to note that what we accept from other WGs is different than what other WGs can do. and to propose "Compatible with the W3C VC Ecosystem" and argue against "These 22:44:10 ... are W3C VCs as well" 22:44:11 but don't we need to provide guidance to get there, but I completetly agree 22:44:13 ^what Orie said is true -- but perhaps we should say something about it in the spec because there's so much interest in it. 22:45:09 you know things are different, if you need a mapping... QED. 22:45:12 +1 to Orie as well. If they produce the same media-type, it's a W3C VC. If its a different media-type it isn't, unless we, the VCWG bless a normative mapping as W3C VCs 22:45:57 Manu: I wanted to clarify, heard the phrase then we are w3c VC that these are equivalent things have strong -1 reaction to that. There is one data model that is a w3c VC. Those things like Gordian are their own thing, there may be transforms that lossless transform The language we are trying to use is that these are compatible with bi-directional transform. The thing I am most concerned about is that someone is going to game it in such a way has 22:46:04 +1 manu, interop will be bad... 22:46:11 +1 to Manu 22:46:14 we saw this already with previous version of vc-jwt. 22:46:24 i think the outstanding question is whether this WG defines the transformation requirements for the serializations outside this WG, which is DID-Core path, and it is untestable. 22:46:59 +1 manu, impossible amount of work for this group. 22:47:02 the lack of compromise in this WG (base data model MUST be vc+ld+json) is what will push those big companies towards what you are warning against, manu 22:47:38 Manu: has having a negative impact on interop like big vendor pushing w3c VC when then are not. We want to enable ACDC, JWT, Gordian because strongly legitimate attempts to do mapping correctly. What we are talking about is a mountain of work. We DID core not testable. Concerned that WG is about to bite off mountain of work with 4 months left. Feels like this conversation keep going. 22:47:48 q? 22:47:51 ack Orie 22:47:51 Orie, you wanted to propose removing vc+jwt from vc-jwt work item, and closing both open PRs. 22:48:06 big companies gonna do what big companies gonna do .... if they want to cause lock-in and market control, they'll attempt it. 22:48:30 (especially if we have spec text that gives them a good path to do so) 22:48:43 s/those big companies/anyone who wants flexibility (does not have to be a big company) 22:49:00 Orie: queued to suggest concrete thing we can poll on. "Remove the media type for vc-jwt which is the only media type that requires a mapping and then close both PRs 1100 and 1101. The primary contentious point is no longer valid. 22:49:04 poll: remove vc+jwt media type and it's associated mapping 22:49:09 +1 22:49:11 q+ for clarification of external proof defintion 22:49:14 +1 22:49:19 +1 22:49:20 +1 22:49:20 +1 22:49:26 +0 22:49:27 +1 22:49:29 -1 need to think of the implications 22:49:41 0 need clarification 22:49:45 ...but not because we don't like vc-jwt -- because it's the "transformation" part of that spec, which will send us in circles. 22:49:45 +0.5 (not perfect, but as an expediency to address vc-jwt later) 22:49:48 +1 22:49:48 +1 with a view to clarifying implications 22:49:58 00 22:50:22 BrentZ: only -1 is Christina 22:50:33 Can we be explicit to say intent is to address it later with a note? 22:50:35 q+ 22:50:52 Could be an implementation guidance thing? 22:51:09 ack sam 22:51:09 sam, you wanted to discuss clarification of external proof defintion 22:51:21 q+ 22:51:24 sam: If we remove the language, what does it do to external proof formats? 22:51:38 ack ChristopherA 22:51:41 sam: Is there any normative guidance for that? Or is it anything folks would want for an external proof format? 22:52:38 not possible to move, because changes to normative stuff breaks CR... and a note is not normative. 22:52:44 ChristopenAllen: wanted to ask for christina for people not on this special meeting. My take on process perspective is it possible to move details around vc+jwt into a note not normative these are where we are at. 22:52:49 A note on transformations might make sense at this point. 22:53:09 Just write down the concerns the group has... why we decided to not do/not do normative stuff 22:53:17 Can the note to transformations point to the vc specs dfir? or am I way off base? 22:53:27 chris allen: concentrate on closing. without awknowledging jwt not show up to community. maybe that causes us to get us knocked out due to objections 22:53:36 ack Orie 22:53:44 s/chris allen/ChristopherA 22:54:40 Orie: answer sams question about proof can be optional internal or external ans is not operative in determining if VC or not. Unlike what spec says. adding aproof does not make it verifiable. @context of structure of json makes it a VC not the securing mechanism. 22:56:44 BrentZundel: Chairs take it under advisement. maybe excise those portions that transform leaving those tha sign VC data model. Three paths. 1, add non normative guidance for tranforms. 2 add normative spec text minimum guidance for transforms 3. excising from vc-jwt the transforms whicl keeping jwt a securing mechanism 22:56:59 +1 22:57:09 BrentZundel: appreciate participation today everyone was nice 22:57:52 zakim, who is here? 22:57:52 Present: dmitriz, decentralgabe, manu, dlongley, sam, kristina, hsano, Orie, dlehn, ChristopherA 22:57:54 On IRC I see ChristopherA, Orie, JoeAndrieu, kristina, sam, Zakim, RRSAgent, brent, pdl_asu, hsano, PhilF, kgriffin, dmitriz, manu, shigeya, dlehn, csarven, cel, dlongley, stenr 22:58:09 present+ 22:58:24 present+ kgriffen 22:58:34 present+ philLong 22:58:50 present+ dlehn 22:59:03 present+ pdl_asu 22:59:17 present+ JoeAndrieu 22:59:26 zakim, end the meeting 22:59:26 As of this point the attendees have been dmitriz, decentralgabe, manu, dlongley, sam, kristina, hsano, Orie, dlehn, ChristopherA, brent, kgriffen, philLong, pdl_asu, JoeAndrieu 22:59:29 RRSAgent, please draft minutes 22:59:30 I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/05/23-vcwg-special-minutes.html Zakim 22:59:37 I am happy to have been of service, brent; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye 22:59:37 Zakim has left #vcwg-special 22:59:40 rrsagent, bye 22:59:40 I see no action items